"Duane Bozarth"
Tim Daneliuk wrote:
...

...that anything exists at all suggests one of several possibilities:

- It is all an illusion/magic and we can know nothing about anything.

- The stuff that exists always has and perhaps even always will
(in some form in both cases).

- Something/someone that has always existed brought it all into being
somehow.

Can you think of any other possibilities?

Yes.

Don't go too far out on a limb now. : )

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...
That there are remnants not yet found (or may never be found) from
something on the order of 30E6 years ago is far less of a presumption
that the "divine intervention" or similar arguments.

That isn't what he said. He said transitional fossils
aren't there, not some remnants.

OK then, that there are transitional fossils not yet found (or may never
be found) from something on the order of 30E6 years ago is far less of a
presumption that the "divine intervention" or similar arguments.

But if the prevailing theory is correct, they should be there so
so divine intervention looks better to me.

The lack of fossil evidence isn't the same as non-existence. The point
is that many types of species will have had virtually no possiblity of
ever being fossilized in the first place. Others would have minimal
opportunity owing to composition, still others owing to general
conditions surrounding them. Add to that the impossibility of exploring
every cubic centimeter of the earth's volume and the sizable
restructuring of much of that, it's frankly amazing there is as much of
a fossil record as there is. To postulate that any form could _never_
have existed is simply not supported by the fact it may/has not yet been
found. I find drawing inferences from the evidence of what we do find
and other scientific processes far more satisfying.

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

I would prefer there were no public schools and people sent their
children to private school (they paid for themselves) that taught
the values most aligned with their own.

...

That can be a major disservice to the unfortunate "student" who is thus
never exposed to anything except a very narrow view of the world. One
can think of lots of such possible "curricula" that can even a much
worse outcome than the shortsighted view you seem to want to promote.
Things like neo-Naziis, for example, come to mind...

Do you seriously think that making education "public" solves this
problem? The elementary schools have become babysitting services.
The middle- and high-schools have become breeding grounds for
thugs, gangs, and worse. The universities have become madrassas for
the ideological Left. Private education, however stilted, could not
be worse.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...
That there are remnants not yet found (or may never be found) from
something on the order of 30E6 years ago is far less of a presumption
that the "divine intervention" or similar arguments.

That isn't what he said. He said transitional fossils
aren't there, not some remnants.

OK then, that there are transitional fossils not yet found (or may never
be found) from something on the order of 30E6 years ago is far less of a
presumption that the "divine intervention" or similar arguments.

But if the prevailing theory is correct, they should be there so
so divine intervention looks better to me.

The lack of fossil evidence isn't the same as non-existence.


It is unless you believe by faith.


The point
is that many types of species will have had virtually no possiblity of
ever being fossilized in the first place.


That's not true, even veins in Jellyfish have been fossilized. Transitional
fossils should be in relative abundance in the Darwinian slow mutation
model.


Others would have minimal
opportunity owing to composition, still others owing to general
conditions surrounding them. Add to that the impossibility of exploring
every cubic centimeter of the earth's volume and the sizable
restructuring of much of that, it's frankly amazing there is as much of
a fossil record as there is.


But there has been several excellent sites found very far apart, we don't
need to excavate the earth.


To postulate that any form could _never_
have existed is simply not supported by the fact it may/has not yet been
found. I find drawing inferences from the evidence of what we do find
and other scientific processes far more satisfying.


But that's what ID is. Inference from evidence. You can pick a side
but to blame the other for using the same criteria isn't reasonable.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...

I would prefer there were no public schools and people sent their
children to private school (they paid for themselves) that taught
the values most aligned with their own.

...

That can be a major disservice to the unfortunate "student" who is thus
never exposed to anything except a very narrow view of the world. One
can think of lots of such possible "curricula" that can even a much
worse outcome than the shortsighted view you seem to want to promote.
Things like neo-Naziis, for example, come to mind...

Those are _possible_ now.


Do you seriously think that making education "public" solves this
problem? The elementary schools have become babysitting services.
The middle- and high-schools have become breeding grounds for
thugs, gangs, and worse. The universities have become madrassas for
the ideological Left. Private education, however stilted, could not
be worse.


Would none at all be worse than public education? Even with today's
high droput rate in the public schools I tend to think some education
at least, is reaching more children that would be the case without
public schools. I suppose you have a way of addressing that, but
would rather not speculate on it.

--

FF

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...


I would prefer there were no public schools and people sent their
children to private school (they paid for themselves) that taught
the values most aligned with their own.

...

That can be a major disservice to the unfortunate "student" who is thus
never exposed to anything except a very narrow view of the world. One
can think of lots of such possible "curricula" that can even a much
worse outcome than the shortsighted view you seem to want to promote.
Things like neo-Naziis, for example, come to mind...


Those are _possible_ now.


Do you seriously think that making education "public" solves this
problem? The elementary schools have become babysitting services.
The middle- and high-schools have become breeding grounds for
thugs, gangs, and worse. The universities have become madrassas for
the ideological Left. Private education, however stilted, could not
be worse.



Would none at all be worse than public education? Even with today's
high droput rate in the public schools I tend to think some education
at least, is reaching more children that would be the case without
public schools. I suppose you have a way of addressing that, but
would rather not speculate on it.


The problem is that public education is the worst of all possible
worlds. It requires everyone to pony up, but then have very little
to say about its content or quality. For example, the Columbine
murders would likely have been avoided in a private school. Why?
Because the perpetrators already had a felony record (IIRC) and a private
school could have blocked their readmission. Public schools are required
to admit everyone and try as best they can to reflect the ideas and
values of the entire society - clearly an impossible task. Yes,
there is some slight residual effect wherein some education is better than
none, but the cost/benefit ratio is (IMO) not worth it. We are already
losing students today under the public system (to drugs, gangs, etc.).
Why not just admit that some percentage will always be lost and optimize
the system for the majority - i.e., Privately run and funded schools that
can enforce order and make education a priority...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
....
The lack of fossil evidence isn't the same as non-existence.

It is unless you believe by faith.

No... that you can't prove a negative is an axiom.

....

But there has been several excellent sites found very far apart, we don't
need to excavate the earth.

What is there in what we haven't explored? We have absolutely no idea
but undoubtedly there are things we haven't found...

Hell, we don't even know what's presently alive in the deep oceans or
remote jungles, what's more what may be buried in inaccessible
locations.

To postulate that any form could _never_
have existed is simply not supported by the fact it may/has not yet been
found. I find drawing inferences from the evidence of what we do find
and other scientific processes far more satisfying.

But that's what ID is. Inference from evidence. You can pick a side
but to blame the other for using the same criteria isn't reasonable.

That's what ID precisely isn't...continues to make presumptions and
selective interpretations.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:


Tim Daneliuk wrote:

...


I would prefer there were no public schools and people sent their
children to private school (they paid for themselves) that taught
the values most aligned with their own.

...

That can be a major disservice to the unfortunate "student" who is thus
never exposed to anything except a very narrow view of the world. One
can think of lots of such possible "curricula" that can even a much
worse outcome than the shortsighted view you seem to want to promote.
Things like neo-Naziis, for example, come to mind...


Those are _possible_ now.


Do you seriously think that making education "public" solves this
problem? The elementary schools have become babysitting services.
The middle- and high-schools have become breeding grounds for
thugs, gangs, and worse. The universities have become madrassas for
the ideological Left. Private education, however stilted, could not
be worse.



Would none at all be worse than public education? Even with today's
high droput rate in the public schools I tend to think some education
at least, is reaching more children that would be the case without
public schools. I suppose you have a way of addressing that, but
would rather not speculate on it.


The problem is that public education is the worst of all possible
worlds.

How does it compare to a world with no schools, or don't you
consider that possible?

You would have us believe that ALL of the public schools, or
at least so many of them, are so bad as to be a complete
or nearly complete failure.

... Public schools are required
to admit everyone and try as best they can to reflect the ideas and
values of the entire society - clearly an impossible task. Yes,
there is some slight residual effect wherein some education is better than
none, but the cost/benefit ratio is (IMO) not worth it. We are already
losing students today under the public system (to drugs, gangs, etc.).
Why not just admit that some percentage will always be lost and optimize
the system for the majority - i.e., Privately run and funded schools that
can enforce order and make education a priority...


Obviously:

Many of those who will always be lost have parents who can
afford to send them to private schools even if they fail all
their courses. While the management of all of those private
schools would rather not have students that fail many will
consider the receipt of tuition payment from the parents
to be more important than the success of the students.

Meanwhile, many of that majority who would do well, or at
least acceptably in school will NOT have parents who can
afford to send them to private schools.

I agree that public schools CAN be terribly inadequate, in-
efficient, and dangerous. Rather than looking at the
best of the public schools and trying to appy that to the
others, you propose a 'social Darwinism' of the worse sort.

Feh!

--

FF

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker
"Duane Bozarth"
...
The lack of fossil evidence isn't the same as non-existence.

It is unless you believe by faith.

No... that you can't prove a negative is an axiom.


It isn't a negative. The theory is mutations into other
species but the fossil record doesn't confirm it. If you
want to believe it, you do so by faith. You aren't
doing it by evidence.


But there has been several excellent sites found very far apart, we don't
need to excavate the earth.


What is there in what we haven't explored? We have absolutely no idea
but undoubtedly there are things we haven't found...


Yes, no doubt.


Hell, we don't even know what's presently alive in the deep oceans or
remote jungles, what's more what may be buried in inaccessible
locations.

To postulate that any form could _never_
have existed is simply not supported by the fact it may/has not yet been
found. I find drawing inferences from the evidence of what we do find
and other scientific processes far more satisfying.

But that's what ID is. Inference from evidence. You can pick a side
but to blame the other for using the same criteria isn't reasonable.


That's what ID precisely isn't...continues to make presumptions and
selective interpretations.


Which differs from Darwinian theory...how?

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


Thanks for joining us in the discussion of Intelligent Design,
I'm the one he was talking to, we were discussing Dr.
Chien's findings at Chengjiang. I don't know why the link
keep disappearing.


http://www.origins.org/articles/chie...ionoflife.html
"Take all the different body plans of roundworms, flatworms, coral,
jellyfish and whatever all those appeared at the very first instant."

Dr. Chien has no findings at Chengjiang. He went there once, and looked
at some fossils people showed him.

You're very generous. He didn't claim to have made discoveries there
but he spent time with those who had at the site and presents his
visit with an international group as being informed to what the discoveries
were. those were his findings, you don't need to be so defensive.

I'm just saying that "findings" is a bit of a fancy term to apply to
what he did. That's all.

He said:

"Yes, it's the site of the first marine animal found in the early Cambrian times
we don't count micro-organisms as animals."


Why is that wrong?


Because the Chengjiang is preceded by a host of marine animals,
including the "small, shelly fauna" of the earliest Cambrian and the
Ediacarans and Doushantuo embryos of the Vendian, as well as gradually
increasing animal trace fossils starting in the Vendian.

He said it's the site of the first animals found in the early Cambrian times.
I asked why that was wrong and you countered with findings in
the Vendian period. That doesn't make sense.

The clear implication was not just that they were the first Cambrian
animals, but that they were the first animals. Otherwise his claim makes
no sense. At any rate, it's wrong even if you make that restriction.
There are earlier animal fossils, even in the Cambrian, as I have
explained already. The Chengjiang is the earliest well-preserved,
soft-bodied, diverse Cambrian fauna.

"Since the Cambrian period, we have only die-off and no new groups
coming about, ever. There's only one little exception cited the group
known as bryozoans, which are found in the fossil record a little later.
However, most people think we just haven't found it yet; that group was
probably also present in the Cambrian explosion."


He agrees on the bryozoans, but he doesn't appear to know that the
majority of modern phyla have no fossil record. We have no data to tell
us whether Bryozoa originated in the Ordovician or earlier. But if they
did originate earlier, then they only developed mineralized skeletons in
the Ordovician.

Can you explain your assertion? What leads you to believe that he
doesn't know that the majority of modern phyla have no fossil record?

Because he's making claims about the total number of phyla through
history. How can he do that if there's no record of the majority of them
until the present?

You essentially repeat what he said, i.e. that the Bryozoa was found in
the later period. How does that lead to your conclusion?

It doesn't. The rest of what I said leads to that conclusion.

As for transitionals, there are many such in the Chengjiang, including
Yunnanozoon.

You are making a number of claims by assertion. He is chairman of the
biology department at the University of San Francisco and he said:

Actually, he's not chairman now. And what relevance does that have,
whether he is or isn't? Argument from authority?

"In studying marine organisms, and mainly the invertebrate groups, I have a
clear vision of the distinct characteristics of each phyla."

I guess at this point I need to ask you what your credentials are, no
offense, but generalized accusations are a poor substitute for rebuttal.

Credentials are meaningless. I certainly have better credentials than he
does, for what that's worth. But my point is that it's worth nothing, so
I resist discussing the matter. What's worth something is the actual
information. I have made claims. You could verify them by reading the
primary scientific literature. There are also a few popular books, and
web sites too, but in the latter case there are also many web sites with
misinformation (like the Chien interview). You will just have to decide
somehow. I have already recommended an important scientific paper. Don't
know what else to do.

But let's try. Which of my claims do you specifically doubt? I'll try to
back them up. But that may require citing more literature, and unless
you actually go look up the papers, you will have to take my word.

As for books, Simon Conway Morris' book The Crucible of Creation is
pretty good, and corrects many of the errors of Wonderful Life (not to
pick on Gould, but science advances). Also, Andy Knoll's book Life on a
Young Planet gives you a quick rundown on that and much more. This is a
good scientific review of the general chronology that might help:
Valentine, J. W., D. Jablonski, and D. H. Erwin. 1999. Fossils,
molecules, and embryos: New perspectives on the Cambrian explosion.
Development 126:851-859.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether
through design or stupidity, I do not know-- as admitting that the
fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are
generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between
larger groups."

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens
Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New
York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.



Well, if it was really that simple he wouldn't need "punctuated equilibrium"
would he? Clearly the record is a stumbling block with myriads of
theories so he seems to be downplaying the objection quite a bit.
1983 was a while ago, are they any closer to an answer?

The point is actually that you don't even know the question.

We go from wild sweeping allegations to outright insults. That didn't
take long now did it? You also avoided my question, are we any closer
to an answer?

Not an insult, but an observation. An answer to what, exactly?

PE has a
problem, in that it's really impossible to test it using the fossil
record.

How do you propose we test it?

I'm not sure it can be tested except by looking at the process of
speciation happening right now. PE also makes predictions about the
resistence of populations to selection, and those could be tested. As
far as I can see, though, they have already been falsified.

PE is a theory to explain why the
fossil record doesn't match the Darwinian evolution theory of small
incremental changes. What part of that didn't I get?

Not sure. PE is in fact a quite confused theory. But it's a theory about
the differences between closely similar species, and has nothing to do
with the Cambrian explosion, or the supposed absence of intermediates
between higher groups than species.

But I hope at least you will retract your claim about what Gould
said.

What for? You should explain first why his theory is reasonable.
ID gets flak because it isn't testable so why doesn't Gould, or anyone
else, need to meet the same challenge?

I don't think his theory is reasonable. Gould does indeed need to meet
the testability challenge. All that has nothing to do with your
misinterpretation of what he was claiming.

For more on that, go he
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot....html#quote3.2

A good rebuttal site created to balance their view is:
http://www.trueorigin.org/

I don't find it very good. Perhaps you are too credulous.

More assertions.

Merely reporting my experience with that site.

Dr Gould was referring to the entire fossil record, Dr Chien is
referring to the Cambrian explosion and from then to now.


I have no idea what you meant by that.

Me neither. That's apparently why he dangled the post in your
group.

Now I think I know. Chien was apparently claiming that Gould called the
Cambrian explosion "the trade secret of paleontology" when in fact Gould
was referring to the apparent general stasis within species.

Well, no, it was a more general comment from Gould than that, he
said:
http://www.earthhistory.co.uk/propos...-trade-secret/
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as
the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our
textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest
is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
S. J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, p 179 (1980)

Dr. Chien sited his source as being from Johnson's book so I suppose
it remains to be seen how accurate Johnson was. It seems Gould has
made that comment throughout the years, perhaps in different contexts.
However, it's a small point and I doubt that's why your group was recruited.

To set you, Chien, and Johnson straight on what Gould was actually
talking about? I don't know what could be clearer than quoting Gould
directly explaining what he was actually talking about, but apparently
that's not enough.

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ...
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent
with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during
their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same
as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and direction less.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by
the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
[S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

What point are you trying to make by quoting this? Gould, as he himself
explained above, is talking here about fine-grained transitions between
closely related species, not about transitions between major groups.

It relates to what Dr. Chein said about the record, they are in agreement
here.

No. They are not. This is your misinterpretation, as Gould's own words
telling you that you are wrong should have made clear.

That is, he's talking about lack of evidence for exactly the sort of
transitions that creationists commonly agree do happen.

He said they look "much the same" as earlier versions. Not exactly
the same, so he is in fact saying that the record agrees with most
creationist's views, *not* disagrees. Micro-evolution is not in
dispute.

Gould is, in the quote above, talking about individual species: they
appear, do not change much during their lifetimes, and disappear. No
"earlier versions" mentioned. However closely similar species are found
in the record before them, and more such species after them, generally
in a temporal pattern that clearly demonstrates transitions on that
level. Which is what Gould means when he says "Transitional forms are
generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between
larger groups." So when he says transitionals are rare, he means smooth
transitions between, for example, one species of fruit fly and another.
Just the sort of thing you call "micro-evolution" and say is not in dispute.

As he says way
above, the evidence for the sort of transitions that creationists think
don't happen is plentiful enough.

Yes, he said that too but Dr. Chein doesn't see any. Seems like
if it was a fact it wouldn't be debatable.

It's Chien. And it's not really debatable, unless you come into it with
a full set of creationist preconceptions, as Chien does. Scientists who
actually work on this do see transitional forms. Again, check out the
Budd & Jensen paper I cited earlier.

Also you may be interested in a growing list of scientists that are
seriously questioning Darwinian Evolution.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:I...ient=firefox-a

This list is bogus.

Oh my.

Many of the signers had no idea it would be used to
support creationism. It was a bait-and-switch that relied on the
ambiguity of "Darwinian evolution" to attract customers. But if you like
lists, try Project Steve:

Well, there's one guy who says he was later embarrassed to get involved,
although the Discovery site is available and makes no bones about
it's intent. He doesn't really say that his view on Darwinian Evolution changed
though, just that he's troubled on how it's used.

Precisely. Have you read the actual statement? *I* could have signed it,
as could most evolutionary biologists. It's not denying that evolution
happens, it's not denying that natural selection is important (merely
saying that it's not the only mechanism of evolution, which is clearly
true), and it calls for careful examination of data, which is what
scientists are always supposed to do. It's entirely innocuous. This has
nothing to do with the way in which the DI is trying to use it.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new..._9_16_2005.asp

And...? Mine's bigger than yours? That means we discount
those who disagree with the majority, no matter what their
creditials are?

Nope. You brought up the list as if it proved something. I'm merely
countering with a list of my own. If your list proves anything, my list
disproves it a lot louder. If my list proves nothing, so does yours. You
pick.

You do make alot of statements by assertion,
guilt by association or innuendo. Maybe the signers are sick of it
and want a little more perspective and scientific objectivity?

Assertion, yes. But I've given you the tools to check my assertions.
Guilt by association? Innuendo? No idea what you're talking about.
Speculating about the signers, beyond reading what they signed, is
pointless. And like I said, the actual statement says nothing I disagree
with. Maybe you should try reading it yourself.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker
"Duane Bozarth"
...
The lack of fossil evidence isn't the same as non-existence.

It is unless you believe by faith.

No... that you can't prove a negative is an axiom.

It isn't a negative. The theory is mutations into other
species but the fossil record doesn't confirm it. If you
want to believe it, you do so by faith. You aren't
doing it by evidence.

And you're eliminating the rational conclusion simply because you want
to postulate that what isn't yet known can't be.

But there has been several excellent sites found very far apart, we don't
need to excavate the earth.

What is there in what we haven't explored? We have absolutely no idea
but undoubtedly there are things we haven't found...

Yes, no doubt.

So you want to assert that because we haven't found it we don't need to
look as it can't be there. That makes sense.

Hell, we don't even know what's presently alive in the deep oceans or
remote jungles, what's more what may be buried in inaccessible
locations.

To postulate that any form could _never_
have existed is simply not supported by the fact it may/has not yet been
found. I find drawing inferences from the evidence of what we do find
and other scientific processes far more satisfying.

But that's what ID is. Inference from evidence. You can pick a side
but to blame the other for using the same criteria isn't reasonable.

That's what ID precisely isn't...continues to make presumptions and
selective interpretations.

Which differs from Darwinian theory...how?

In that their selecivism is so grossly biased by the preconception of
the mandatory result in many instances as to be absolutely ludicrous.

The primary difference is that when (and if) there is an irrefutable
impasse in the direction science takes, it will be modified to account
for such new evidence. ID'ers, otoh, have already decreed they know the
answer.

A fossil of a new kind if previously unknown dinosaur has just been
reported:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051018/...dmBHNlYwM3NTM-.
Earlier it was unknown, even though it existed in the fossil record. I
already discussed how sparse the fossil record is. Why do you keep flogging
a dead horse? Did ID predict it? Tell the scientists where to look? If
not, ID has once again demonstrated no advantage over evolution science.
There is something to be said for consistency.

Steve

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...
That there are remnants not yet found (or may never be found) from
something on the order of 30E6 years ago is far less of a
presumption
that the "divine intervention" or similar arguments.

That isn't what he said. He said transitional fossils
aren't there, not some remnants.

OK then, that there are transitional fossils not yet found (or may
never
be found) from something on the order of 30E6 years ago is far less of
a
presumption that the "divine intervention" or similar arguments.

But if the prevailing theory is correct, they should be there so
so divine intervention looks better to me.

The lack of fossil evidence isn't the same as non-existence. The point
is that many types of species will have had virtually no possiblity of
ever being fossilized in the first place. Others would have minimal
opportunity owing to composition, still others owing to general
conditions surrounding them. Add to that the impossibility of exploring
every cubic centimeter of the earth's volume and the sizable
restructuring of much of that, it's frankly amazing there is as much of
a fossil record as there is. To postulate that any form could _never_
have existed is simply not supported by the fact it may/has not yet been
found. I find drawing inferences from the evidence of what we do find
and other scientific processes far more satisfying.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Thanks for joining us in the discussion of Intelligent Design,
I'm the one he was talking to, we were discussing Dr.
Chien's findings at Chengjiang. I don't know why the link
keep disappearing.

http://www.origins.org/articles/chie...ionoflife.html
"Take all the different body plans of roundworms, flatworms, coral,
jellyfish and whatever all those appeared at the very first instant."


Dr. Chien has no findings at Chengjiang. He went there once, and looked
at some fossils people showed him.


You're very generous. He didn't claim to have made discoveries there
but he spent time with those who had at the site and presents his
visit with an international group as being informed to what the discoveries
were. those were his findings, you don't need to be so defensive.

He said:

"Yes, it's the site of the first marine animal found in the early Cambrian times
we don't count micro-organisms as animals."


Why is that wrong?


Because the Chengjiang is preceded by a host of marine animals,
including the "small, shelly fauna" of the earliest Cambrian and the
Ediacarans and Doushantuo embryos of the Vendian, as well as gradually
increasing animal trace fossils starting in the Vendian.

He said it's the site of the first animals found in the early Cambrian times.
I asked why that was wrong and you countered with findings in
the Vendian period. That doesn't make sense.


Note the use of 'earliest Cambrian' and also note the relationship
between Vendian and Cambrian.


"Since the Cambrian period, we have only die-off and no new groups
coming about, ever. There's only one little exception cited the group
known as bryozoans, which are found in the fossil record a little later.
However, most people think we just haven't found it yet; that group was
probably also present in the Cambrian explosion."


He agrees on the bryozoans, but he doesn't appear to know that the
majority of modern phyla have no fossil record. We have no data to tell
us whether Bryozoa originated in the Ordovician or earlier. But if they
did originate earlier, then they only developed mineralized skeletons in
the Ordovician.


Can you explain your assertion? What leads you to believe that he
doesn't know that the majority of modern phyla have no fossil record?

Obviously, absent a fossil record there is no direct observational
evidence that those phyla were present in the Cambrian.

You essentially repeat what he said, i.e. that the Bryozoa was found in
the later period. How does that lead to your conclusion?

Straw man. That is not what leads to his conclusion.


...

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether
through design or stupidity, I do not know-- as admitting that the
fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are
generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between
larger groups."

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens
Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New
York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.


Well, if it was really that simple he wouldn't need "punctuated equilibrium"
would he? Clearly the record is a stumbling block with myriads of
theories so he seems to be downplaying the objection quite a bit.
1983 was a while ago, are they any closer to an answer?


The point is actually that you don't even know the question.


We go from wild sweeping allegations to outright insults. That didn't
take long now did it? You also avoided my question, are we any closer
to an answer?

That was not an insult at all. Odd that you would think it so.


...

But I hope at least you will retract your claim about what Gould
said.

No way! Mr Humplebacker will simply insist that his intepretation
of Dr Gould's remarks is superior to Gould's interpretation of
his own words.



What for? You should explain first why his theory is reasonable.
ID gets flak because it isn't testable so why doesn't Gould, or anyone
else, need to meet the same challenge?


Or just change the subject.

....

Dr. Chien sited his source as being from Johnson's book so I suppose
it remains to be seen how accurate Johnson was. It seems Gould has
made that comment throughout the years, perhaps in different contexts.
However, it's a small point and I doubt that's why your group was recruited.


Discussions tend to be better when at least some of the
participants actually know something about the subject matter.
I have a very weak background in biology, paleontology, and
geology. Mr Humplebacker it would seem, never even took,
or at any rate, passed, a biology course. People who frequent
sci.bio.paleontology are likely to know enough to correct most
or all of our misstatements, allowing this, er, discussion, to
evolve from an exchange of ignorance into an exchange of knowledge.

...

Also you may be interested in a growing list of scientists that are
seriously questioning Darwinian Evolution.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:I...ient=firefox-a


This list is bogus.

Oh my.

Uh, Mr Harshman, I've been over this with him. Mr Humplebacker
insists that everyone on that list must support 'ID', even though
neither 'ID' nor anything resembling it appears in the statement
itself. That conclusion appears to be solidly based on two false
assumptions:

1) It is not possible to question an idea without supporitng an
alternative. 2) ID is the only alternative to 'Darwinian Evolution'.
For a time he insisted that transmutation and macromutation
theory were 'Darwinian Evolution'. By now it would appear that
he is beginning to accept that they are not, but instead has
adopted the policy of insisting every scientist has rejected
everything but 'Darwinian evolution' and 'ID'.

Further, it appears that Mr Humplebacker equates 'to question'
with 'to reject' so that anyone who 'questions Darwinian
evolution' supports 'ID'. Evidently that is exactly what
the DI intended.



Many of the signers had no idea it would be used to
support creationism. It was a bait-and-switch that relied on the
ambiguity of "Darwinian evolution" to attract customers. But if you like
lists, try Project Steve:


Well, there's one guy who says he was later embarrassed to get involved,
although the Discovery site is available and makes no bones about
it's intent. He doesn't really say that his view on Darwinian Evolution changed
though, just that he's troubled on how it's used.


False. See:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...9_danny24.html

In addition he says:

"the scientific evidence for evolution is overwhelming."

"When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution.
It's pseudo-science, at best ... What they're doing is instigating
a conflict between science and religion."

He was shocked, he says, when he saw the Discovery Institute was
calling evolution a "theory in crisis."

"It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments [perhaps an
exageration, FF] over more than a century that support evolution,"
he says. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the
theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific
controversy about it."

"It just clicked with me that this whole movement is wrongheaded on
all counts," Davidson said. "It's a misuse of science, and a misuse
of religion.

"Why can't we just keep the two separate?"

More of what he ostensibly said was paraphrased by the author
of the article, those are just some direct quotes.

--

FF

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker
"Duane Bozarth"
...
The lack of fossil evidence isn't the same as non-existence.

It is unless you believe by faith.

No... that you can't prove a negative is an axiom.

It isn't a negative. The theory is mutations into other
species but the fossil record doesn't confirm it. If you
want to believe it, you do so by faith. You aren't
doing it by evidence.


And you're eliminating the rational conclusion simply because you want
to postulate that what isn't yet known can't be.


I thought you were the one eliminating the rational conclusion.


But there has been several excellent sites found very far apart, we don't
need to excavate the earth.

What is there in what we haven't explored? We have absolutely no idea
but undoubtedly there are things we haven't found...

Yes, no doubt.


So you want to assert that because we haven't found it we don't need to
look as it can't be there. That makes sense.


When did I say that?

Hell, we don't even know what's presently alive in the deep oceans or
remote jungles, what's more what may be buried in inaccessible
locations.

To postulate that any form could _never_
have existed is simply not supported by the fact it may/has not yet been
found. I find drawing inferences from the evidence of what we do find
and other scientific processes far more satisfying.

But that's what ID is. Inference from evidence. You can pick a side
but to blame the other for using the same criteria isn't reasonable.

That's what ID precisely isn't...continues to make presumptions and
selective interpretations.

Which differs from Darwinian theory...how?


In that their selecivism is so grossly biased by the preconception of
the mandatory result in many instances as to be absolutely ludicrous.


Darwinian? Yes I agree.


The primary difference is that when (and if) there is an irrefutable
impasse in the direction science takes, it will be modified to account
for such new evidence. ID'ers, otoh, have already decreed they know the
answer.


Evolutionists haven't?

In article ,
John Harshman wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

Also you may be interested in a growing list of scientists that are
seriously questioning Darwinian Evolution.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:I...ient=firefox-a

A better link for the Discovery Institute ad is:

http://www.discovery.org/articleFile...ientistsAd.pdf

It seems to be unreachable right now though. (DOS attack?)

This list is bogus. Many of the signers had no idea it would be used to
support creationism. It was a bait-and-switch that relied on the
ambiguity of "Darwinian evolution" to attract customers. But if you like
lists, try Project Steve:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new..._9_16_2005.asp

Hmmm..., do you know for a fact that "many" of the signers didn't
know what they were getting into, and don't support the Discovery
Institute's agenda? I just assumed, in a country with an many
fundamentalist Christians as the US, that one would have no trouble
lining up a short list of scientists of one sort or another who
supported Creationism. Scientists are human after all, and if you
look hard enough you can find scientists who believe in UFOs, or
ghosts, or astrology, or all kinds of crazy stuff. So it didn't
occur to me that the list might actually be phony in some way.
What reason do you have to believe that this is so?

When I first saw the Discovery Institute ad (IIRC, back in September
2001 -- *very* bad timing for the Discovery Institute!) my first
thought was not that the list might have been faked, but rather
how patheticly weak it was. Yes, at the beginning of the list
there were a few names I recognized, like the physicist Frank Tipler
(co-author with John D. Barrow of a very interesting book on the
Anthropic Principle in physics). But hey!, what is a physicist
doing on this list anyway? In fact it was blazingly obvious that
the Discovery Institute had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to
get even 100 names. There were an awful lot of physicists and
chemists and mathematicians and engineers, which is to say, people
with no special expertise in evolutionary science. (A Postdoctoral
Researcher in Internal Medicine? An Assistant Professor of Urban
& Community Forestry?? WTF???). There were an awful lot of obscure
institutions, such as Biola University, a fundamentalist Christian
college which was profiled in the New York Times Magazine a little
while back, and which accounts for a full four percent of the list.
(Nobody who accepts evolution gets a position at Biola). They even
padded the list with people who, other than a PhD in this or that
(Anthropology? Philosophy of Biology?), seem to have had no
credentials whatsoever worth listing. (Heck, if I had finished my
dissertation I could have made the list myself). All in all, truly
a sad effort.

Of course, the target audience is not going to know this. When
scientists talk seriously about science, their intended audience
tends to be -- for obvious reasons -- people who are capable of
understanding what they are talking about, i.e., other scientists.
If the scientific community had rejected Einstein's theories, do
you think there is any chance he might have reacted by going around
to school boards and trying to convince the members that Relativity
should be taught in their schools, because he was right and all
the other scientists were wrong, and here's why? Not bloody likely!
But the target audience of the Discovery Institute is precisely
people who don't know much about evolution, and who will be impressed
by a list of 100 people (wow!) with academic degrees (wow!), no
matter how bogus this list might be in real terms. (Actually I
think this is one of the defining characteristics of pseudo-science
in general: far more effort is put into persuading non-scientists
than scientists). Sad, but very typical of the Creationist PR
campaign.
--
John Brock

"John Harshman"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

You're very generous. He didn't claim to have made discoveries there
but he spent time with those who had at the site and presents his
visit with an international group as being informed to what the discoveries
were. those were his findings, you don't need to be so defensive.


I'm just saying that "findings" is a bit of a fancy term to apply to
what he did. That's all.


"Findings" is fancy? I don't agree.


He said it's the site of the first animals found in the early Cambrian times.
I asked why that was wrong and you countered with findings in
the Vendian period. That doesn't make sense.


The clear implication was not just that they were the first Cambrian
animals, but that they were the first animals.

Maybe to you but he said:

"A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla
of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered
during that period of time..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Otherwise his claim makes
no sense. At any rate, it's wrong even if you make that restriction.
There are earlier animal fossils, even in the Cambrian, as I have
explained already.


Where does he say there was no earlier life?



The Chengjiang is the earliest well-preserved,
soft-bodied, diverse Cambrian fauna.

Yes, that's what he said

"But it turns out that the China site is much older, and the preservation
of the specimens is much, much finer."

"Since the Cambrian period, we have only die-off and no new groups
coming about, ever. There's only one little exception cited the group
known as bryozoans, which are found in the fossil record a little later.
However, most people think we just haven't found it yet; that group was
probably also present in the Cambrian explosion."


He agrees on the bryozoans, but he doesn't appear to know that the
majority of modern phyla have no fossil record. We have no data to tell
us whether Bryozoa originated in the Ordovician or earlier. But if they
did originate earlier, then they only developed mineralized skeletons in
the Ordovician.


Can you explain your assertion? What leads you to believe that he
doesn't know that the majority of modern phyla have no fossil record?

Because he's making claims about the total number of phyla through
history. How can he do that if there's no record of the majority of them
until the present?

He says the consensus is...

"(Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while,
but then the consensus became 50-plus.)"



You essentially repeat what he said, i.e. that the Bryozoa was found in
the later period. How does that lead to your conclusion?

It doesn't. The rest of what I said leads to that conclusion.


That makes less sense.


As for transitionals, there are many such in the Chengjiang, including
Yunnanozoon.

You are making a number of claims by assertion. He is chairman of the
biology department at the University of San Francisco and he said:

Actually, he's not chairman now. And what relevance does that have,
whether he is or isn't? Argument from authority?


He was chairman at the time but if he was as clueless as you suggested
it seems unlikely he would have had the position. On the contrary, so
far your argument is entirely on authority, which is why I asked for
credentials.



"In studying marine organisms, and mainly the invertebrate groups, I have a
clear vision of the distinct characteristics of each phyla."

I guess at this point I need to ask you what your credentials are, no
offense, but generalized accusations are a poor substitute for rebuttal.

Credentials are meaningless.


I see. So if we were smart we would disregard the chairman of the Biology
Dept. and believe some guy on usenet because he says so.


I certainly have better credentials than he
does, for what that's worth.


Consider me skeptical. Your assertions are getting a bit old though.


But my point is that it's worth nothing, so
I resist discussing the matter. What's worth something is the actual
information. I have made claims. You could verify them by reading the
primary scientific literature. There are also a few popular books, and
web sites too, but in the latter case there are also many web sites with
misinformation (like the Chien interview).


It seems he's better suited to understand the literature than you or I,
furthermore, he's actually been to the site. You like to back up
assertions with even more assertions. I hope you realize that it
isn't a very scholarly approach.


You will just have to decide
somehow.


Assertions and posturing don't go far with me.


I have already recommended an important scientific paper. Don't
know what else to do.


Important because it agrees with you no doubt.


But let's try. Which of my claims do you specifically doubt?


All of the ones so far that didn't mimick Dr. Chein's interview.


I'll try to
back them up. But that may require citing more literature, and unless
you actually go look up the papers, you will have to take my word.


I thought you didn't like arguments by authority?


As for books, Simon Conway Morris' book The Crucible of Creation is
pretty good, and corrects many of the errors of Wonderful Life (not to
pick on Gould, but science advances).


Unfortunantly Gould doesn't seem to be evolving.


Also, Andy Knoll's book Life on a
Young Planet gives you a quick rundown on that and much more. This is a
good scientific review of the general chronology that might help:
Valentine, J. W., D. Jablonski, and D. H. Erwin. 1999. Fossils,
molecules, and embryos: New perspectives on the Cambrian explosion.
Development 126:851-859.

Thanks, I'd like to recommend this for a start to see an alternative perspective:
http://www.origins.org/menus/book.html


"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether
through design or stupidity, I do not know-- as admitting that the
fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are
generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between
larger groups."

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens
Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New
York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.



Well, if it was really that simple he wouldn't need "punctuated equilibrium"
would he? Clearly the record is a stumbling block with myriads of
theories so he seems to be downplaying the objection quite a bit.
1983 was a while ago, are they any closer to an answer?

The point is actually that you don't even know the question.

We go from wild sweeping allegations to outright insults. That didn't
take long now did it? You also avoided my question, are we any closer
to an answer?

Not an insult, but an observation. An answer to what, exactly?


hint - You quoted Gould on why he proposed PE. That was
quite awhile ago, did he prove it yet?


PE has a
problem, in that it's really impossible to test it using the fossil
record.

How do you propose we test it?


I'm not sure it can be tested except by looking at the process of
speciation happening right now.


Wait a minute there. Micro-evolution isn't even in dispute. Your scientific
approach is an assertion. Micro doesn't prove macro.


But I hope at least you will retract your claim about what Gould
said.


What for? You should explain first why his theory is reasonable.
ID gets flak because it isn't testable so why doesn't Gould, or anyone
else, need to meet the same challenge?


I don't think his theory is reasonable. Gould does indeed need to meet
the testability challenge. All that has nothing to do with your
misinterpretation of what he was claiming.


Or your assertion that I misinterpreted it.


For more on that, go he
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot....html#quote3.2

A good rebuttal site created to balance their view is:
http://www.trueorigin.org/

I don't find it very good. Perhaps you are too credulous.

More assertions.

Merely reporting my experience with that site.


Merely reporting another assertion.


Dr Gould was referring to the entire fossil record, Dr Chien is
referring to the Cambrian explosion and from then to now.


I have no idea what you meant by that.

Me neither. That's apparently why he dangled the post in your
group.

Now I think I know. Chien was apparently claiming that Gould called the
Cambrian explosion "the trade secret of paleontology" when in fact Gould
was referring to the apparent general stasis within species.

Well, no, it was a more general comment from Gould than that, he
said:
http://www.earthhistory.co.uk/propos...-trade-secret/
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as
the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our
textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest
is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
S. J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, p 179 (1980)

Dr. Chien sited his source as being from Johnson's book so I suppose
it remains to be seen how accurate Johnson was. It seems Gould has
made that comment throughout the years, perhaps in different contexts.
However, it's a small point and I doubt that's why your group was recruited.


To set you, Chien, and Johnson straight on what Gould was actually
talking about? I don't know what could be clearer than quoting Gould
directly explaining what he was actually talking about, but apparently
that's not enough.


Not enough to support your claim about Chein. I don't know in what
context he saw Gould's quote, he used the term "trade secret throughout
the years.


http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ...
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent
with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during
their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same
as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and direction less.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by
the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
[S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

What point are you trying to make by quoting this? Gould, as he himself
explained above, is talking here about fine-grained transitions between
closely related species, not about transitions between major groups.

It relates to what Dr. Chein said about the record, they are in agreement
here.


No. They are not. This is your misinterpretation, as Gould's own words
telling you that you are wrong should have made clear.


No, they agree with what Chein said. He said they were fully formed
and appeared suddenly. I don't know what part of that you don't get.



That is, he's talking about lack of evidence for exactly the sort of
transitions that creationists commonly agree do happen.


He said they look "much the same" as earlier versions. Not exactly
the same, so he is in fact saying that the record agrees with most
creationist's views, *not* disagrees. Micro-evolution is not in
dispute.


Gould is, in the quote above, talking about individual species: they
appear, do not change much during their lifetimes, and disappear. No
"earlier versions" mentioned.


There were no earlier versions, that's the point. He is saying that
they *didn't* evolve.



However closely similar species are found
in the record before them, and more such species after them, generally
in a temporal pattern that clearly demonstrates transitions on that
level. Which is what Gould means when he says "Transitional forms are
generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between
larger groups." So when he says transitionals are rare, he means smooth
transitions between, for example, one species of fruit fly and another.
Just the sort of thing you call "micro-evolution" and say is not in dispute.


Is micro-evolution in dispute? anyway you added greatly to his words,
they can speak for themselves.



As he says way
above, the evidence for the sort of transitions that creationists think
don't happen is plentiful enough.

Yes, he said that too but Dr. Chein doesn't see any. Seems like
if it was a fact it wouldn't be debatable.


It's Chien. And it's not really debatable, unless you come into it with
a full set of creationist preconceptions, as Chien does.


There's more assertions, you've got a million of them.

"Even before I became a Christian, I had doubts about evolution."


Scientists who
actually work on this do see transitional forms. Again, check out the
Budd & Jensen paper I cited earlier.


More and more assertions. I read an interview of a biologist that actually
wrote at least one book on evolution and now discounts it entirely. I
think you may be projecting some of your bias onto a chosen group.


Also you may be interested in a growing list of scientists that are
seriously questioning Darwinian Evolution.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:I...ient=firefox-a

This list is bogus.

Oh my.

Many of the signers had no idea it would be used to
support creationism. It was a bait-and-switch that relied on the
ambiguity of "Darwinian evolution" to attract customers. But if you like
lists, try Project Steve:


Well, there's one guy who says he was later embarrassed to get involved,
although the Discovery site is available and makes no bones about
it's intent. He doesn't really say that his view on Darwinian Evolution changed
though, just that he's troubled on how it's used.


Precisely. Have you read the actual statement? *I* could have signed it,
as could most evolutionary biologists. It's not denying that evolution
happens, it's not denying that natural selection is important (merely
saying that it's not the only mechanism of evolution, which is clearly
true), and it calls for careful examination of data, which is what
scientists are always supposed to do. It's entirely innocuous. This has
nothing to do with the way in which the DI is trying to use it.


Nice try. But it actually said:

"...skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life"


That pretty much sums up Darwinian Evolution. The dissent isn't limited to
natural selection.


http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new..._9_16_2005.asp

And...? Mine's bigger than yours? That means we discount
those who disagree with the majority, no matter what their
creditials are?


Nope. You brought up the list as if it proved something.


It does. If you were honest you would admit it. It refutes your theory
that scientists that study Darwinian evolution agree with it.


I'm merely
countering with a list of my own. If your list proves anything, my list
disproves it a lot louder. If my list proves nothing, so does yours. You
pick.


Wrong. The question had nothing to who had the bigger numbers.
Maybe you need to re-read the post.


You do make alot of statements by assertion,
guilt by association or innuendo. Maybe the signers are sick of it
and want a little more perspective and scientific objectivity?


Assertion, yes. But I've given you the tools to check my assertions.


Yes, more assertions. I've given you tools to get a balanced education.


Guilt by association? Innuendo? No idea what you're talking about.


Right.


Speculating about the signers, beyond reading what they signed, is
pointless.


How so when they are credible scientists that question your Darwinian
dogma?


And like I said, the actual statement says nothing I disagree
with. Maybe you should try reading it yourself.


I did, that's why I posted it. Take the blinders off, dude.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
....
It isn't a negative. The theory is mutations into other
species but the fossil record doesn't confirm it.

It doesn't refute it, either. It is quite likely simply incomplete.

And you're eliminating the rational conclusion simply because you want
to postulate that what isn't yet known can't be.

I thought you were the one eliminating the rational conclusion.

I think the postulation of something outside the world continuing to be
involved is the irrational viewpoint.

But there has been several excellent sites found very far apart, we don't
need to excavate the earth.

What is there in what we haven't explored? We have absolutely no idea
but undoubtedly there are things we haven't found...

Yes, no doubt.

So you want to assert that because we haven't found it we don't need to
look as it can't be there. That makes sense.

When did I say that?

Previous post--" ...we don't need to excavate the earth."

So we have already found everything that possibly could be if extant
somewhere else? I don't think that's a conclusion which can be drawn at
all.

....

The primary difference is that when (and if) there is an irrefutable
impasse in the direction science takes, it will be modified to account
for such new evidence. ID'ers, otoh, have already decreed they know the
answer.

Evolutionists haven't?

Nope..that's what they're looking for. They're not the ones saying
"someone else did it", they're the ones looking for ways that are
logically consistent w/ what can be observed and discerned from what we
know about how biology works...

And, as I've noted far earlier, if and when it turns out there is
evidence for another viewpoint that does a better job and is more useful
for future prediction, that viewpoint will come to predominate. I don't
see that as an option for the ID'ers.

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
wrote:
...

The existance of some transitional species is supportive of
slow (micro) mutation and natural selection while the gaps
leave open the possibility of macromutation.


Neither of these is true.

Hmm, How come?



I looked it up and posted a good article that agreed with you.
Macro mutation would seem to be more detrimental than not.
I don't think he reads the links.


Evidently you missed my reply:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...e=source&hl=en
It is down near the bottom.

--

FF

John Harshman wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:


John Harshman wrote:


John Wilkins wrote:




John Harshman wrote:




wrote:






John Harshman wrote:






...

And here's a chart I was looking for before that you will find
instructive: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html


I just have to ask, What does he mean by 'groups'?


The chart means "phyla".


IOW, some sort of taxonomic object (clade) that strikes people as
significantly different enough to rank thus...


I always liked Nitecki's concept: they're phyla if we can't tell what
else they're related to. If we could tell (when we named them, that is)
they wouldn't be phyla.


So the Bush family is a phylum?


No, I think it's clear that they go with the weasels.

Odd. I thought they'd be Poaceae-dwelling Ophidians.

--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122

wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:
....

He said it's the site of the first animals found in the early Cambrian times.
I asked why that was wrong and you countered with findings in
the Vendian period. That doesn't make sense.



Note the use of 'earliest Cambrian' and also note the relationship
between Vendian and Cambrian.

Also note that "Vendian" is now "Ediacaran".

....
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Doesn't anybody get tired of beating this fish **** subject to death?

Reminds me of the old play ground contest, ".... my dasd can beat up on
your dad...."

Spare me the bull****.

Kill the thread...

Doesn't anybody get tired of beating this fish **** subject to death?

Reminds me of the old play ground contest, ".... my dasd can beat up on
your dad...."

Spare me the bull****.

Lew

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"John Harshman"

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


You're very generous. He didn't claim to have made discoveries there
but he spent time with those who had at the site and presents his
visit with an international group as being informed to what the discoveries
were. those were his findings, you don't need to be so defensive.

I'm just saying that "findings" is a bit of a fancy term to apply to
what he did. That's all.

"Findings" is fancy? I don't agree.

OK. No big deal.

He said it's the site of the first animals found in the early Cambrian times.
I asked why that was wrong and you countered with findings in
the Vendian period. That doesn't make sense.

The clear implication was not just that they were the first Cambrian
animals, but that they were the first animals.

Maybe to you but he said:

"A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla
of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered
during that period of time..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


Otherwise his claim makes
no sense. At any rate, it's wrong even if you make that restriction.
There are earlier animal fossils, even in the Cambrian, as I have
explained already.

Where does he say there was no earlier life?

Earlier *animals*. Why did you cut your quote off in mid-sentence? Oh, I
see. Because it's where he says there were no earlier animals: "A simple
way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different
groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that
period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up
to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very
beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist
now."

What do you think "in the very, very beginning" means?

And this claim of over 50 phyla is just wrong. Show me a reference to
that in the scientific literature. Give me a count.


The Chengjiang is the earliest well-preserved,
soft-bodied, diverse Cambrian fauna.

Yes, that's what he said

"But it turns out that the China site is much older, and the preservation
of the specimens is much, much finer."

That's comparing it to the Burgess Shale, which is younger. Not to any
of the older deposits, some of them of Cambrian age, that also have
animal fossils.

"Since the Cambrian period, we have only die-off and no new groups
coming about, ever. There's only one little exception cited the group
known as bryozoans, which are found in the fossil record a little later.
However, most people think we just haven't found it yet; that group was
probably also present in the Cambrian explosion."


He agrees on the bryozoans, but he doesn't appear to know that the
majority of modern phyla have no fossil record. We have no data to tell
us whether Bryozoa originated in the Ordovician or earlier. But if they
did originate earlier, then they only developed mineralized skeletons in
the Ordovician.

Can you explain your assertion? What leads you to believe that he
doesn't know that the majority of modern phyla have no fossil record?

Because he's making claims about the total number of phyla through
history. How can he do that if there's no record of the majority of them
until the present?

He says the consensus is...

"(Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while,
but then the consensus became 50-plus.)"

Whose consensus? None that I know of. And I know the literature pretty well.

You essentially repeat what he said, i.e. that the Bryozoa was found in
the later period. How does that lead to your conclusion?

It doesn't. The rest of what I said leads to that conclusion.

That makes less sense.

Again: He claims to know that no new phyla have originate since the
Cambrian. How does he know? On the basis of fossils? But, like I said,
half of all modern phyla have no fossil record. So how can he possibly
know this?

As for transitionals, there are many such in the Chengjiang, including
Yunnanozoon.

You are making a number of claims by assertion. He is chairman of the
biology department at the University of San Francisco and he said:

Actually, he's not chairman now. And what relevance does that have,
whether he is or isn't? Argument from authority?

He was chairman at the time but if he was as clueless as you suggested
it seems unlikely he would have had the position. On the contrary, so
far your argument is entirely on authority, which is why I asked for
credentials.

I'm arguing from authority, and therefore you have to know my
credentials? But I'm not arguing from authority. And his being chairman
of a department had nothing to do with his knowledge of Cambrian
fossils. He has never published on the subject, and as far as I can tell
never taught a course on the subject. He has no scholarly footprint in
paleontology. What he does is study the effects of pollution on marine
invertebrates. This is all irrelevant to the question.

"In studying marine organisms, and mainly the invertebrate groups, I have a
clear vision of the distinct characteristics of each phyla."

I guess at this point I need to ask you what your credentials are, no
offense, but generalized accusations are a poor substitute for rebuttal.

Credentials are meaningless.

I see. So if we were smart we would disregard the chairman of the Biology
Dept. and believe some guy on usenet because he says so.

No. If you were smart you wouldn't believe anyone, even the chairman of
the biology department, because he says so. I have given you citations
and urls for my claims. Either look them up or don't.

I certainly have better credentials than he
does, for what that's worth.

Consider me skeptical. Your assertions are getting a bit old though.

Feel free to be skeptical. It's a good attitude to take when examining
creationist claims. I will continue to assert that my credentials are
unimportant. If you really believe only arguments from authority, and
insist upon it, I will tell you. But I'm giving you one more opportunity
to realize that credentials don't matter before I do.

But my point is that it's worth nothing, so
I resist discussing the matter. What's worth something is the actual
information. I have made claims. You could verify them by reading the
primary scientific literature. There are also a few popular books, and
web sites too, but in the latter case there are also many web sites with
misinformation (like the Chien interview).

It seems he's better suited to understand the literature than you or I,
furthermore, he's actually been to the site. You like to back up
assertions with even more assertions. I hope you realize that it
isn't a very scholarly approach.

The only things I can do here are make assertions and direct you to
places where you can confirm what I said. What more can anyone do?

You will just have to decide
somehow.

Assertions and posturing don't go far with me.

I have already recommended an important scientific paper. Don't
know what else to do.

Important because it agrees with you no doubt.

You could say this about any reference I gave you. What would you take
as evidence?

But let's try. Which of my claims do you specifically doubt?

All of the ones so far that didn't mimick Dr. Chein's interview.

Pick one or a few, specifically.

I'll try to
back them up. But that may require citing more literature, and unless
you actually go look up the papers, you will have to take my word.

I thought you didn't like arguments by authority?

If you think I'm lying about the references I cite, you are free to look
them up. Argument from authority is a bit different from my claim that I
am not lying about things I have read, and you haven't.

As for books, Simon Conway Morris' book The Crucible of Creation is
pretty good, and corrects many of the errors of Wonderful Life (not to
pick on Gould, but science advances).

Unfortunantly Gould doesn't seem to be evolving.

That's death for you.

Also, Andy Knoll's book Life on a
Young Planet gives you a quick rundown on that and much more. This is a
good scientific review of the general chronology that might help:
Valentine, J. W., D. Jablonski, and D. H. Erwin. 1999. Fossils,
molecules, and embryos: New perspectives on the Cambrian explosion.
Development 126:851-859.

Thanks, I'd like to recommend this for a start to see an alternative perspective:
http://www.origins.org/menus/book.html

The site doesn't seem to be in working condition right now. Perhaps later.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether
through design or stupidity, I do not know-- as admitting that the
fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are
generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between
larger groups."

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens
Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New
York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.



Well, if it was really that simple he wouldn't need "punctuated equilibrium"
would he? Clearly the record is a stumbling block with myriads of
theories so he seems to be downplaying the objection quite a bit.
1983 was a while ago, are they any closer to an answer?

The point is actually that you don't even know the question.

We go from wild sweeping allegations to outright insults. That didn't
take long now did it? You also avoided my question, are we any closer
to an answer?

Not an insult, but an observation. An answer to what, exactly?

hint - You quoted Gould on why he proposed PE. That was
quite awhile ago, did he prove it yet?

That's a complicated question, since PE is a complicated theory. I would
say that he hasn't (and of course is not likely to in the future, being
dead and all). We can take apart PE into several parts: 1) stasis, 2)
morphological punctuation, 3) coincidence of 2 with speciation, 4)
Gould's proposed mechanism, essentially Mayr's peripatric speciation
theory. Of these, 1 is easiest to show, but I don't think it has yet
been adequately demonstrated as a widespread phenomenon. 2 is a bit
harder, requiring very good stratigraphic and geographic controls. It
may have been demonstrated in some species, mostly forams. 3 is, I
think, impossible from the fossil record, simply because we can only try
to recognize species based on morphological change, and the assertion
then becomes circular. And the genetics on 4 are not looking good.

PE has a
problem, in that it's really impossible to test it using the fossil
record.

How do you propose we test it?

I'm not sure it can be tested except by looking at the process of
speciation happening right now.

Wait a minute there. Micro-evolution isn't even in dispute. Your scientific
approach is an assertion. Micro doesn't prove macro.

I'm not clear what you mean by micro or macro. I sense you are using
them in ways that are different from what biologists mean. At any rate,
macroevolution by any definition doesn't depend on PE, or even on
fossils. The best evidence for macroevolution is the nested hierarchy of
living species, especially the DNA sequence evidence.

But I hope at least you will retract your claim about what Gould
said.

What for? You should explain first why his theory is reasonable.
ID gets flak because it isn't testable so why doesn't Gould, or anyone
else, need to meet the same challenge?

I don't think his theory is reasonable. Gould does indeed need to meet
the testability challenge. All that has nothing to do with your
misinterpretation of what he was claiming.

Or your assertion that I misinterpreted it.

You read the quote from Gould in which he specifically says that
creationists misinterpreted him in exactly the way you do here, right?
Your choices are to admit this, or to claim that Gould never said it and
I made up the quote.

For more on that, go he
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot....html#quote3.2

A good rebuttal site created to balance their view is:
http://www.trueorigin.org/

I don't find it very good. Perhaps you are too credulous.

More assertions.

Merely reporting my experience with that site.

Merely reporting another assertion.

Give me an argument from the site that you like. We'll look at it together.

Dr Gould was referring to the entire fossil record, Dr Chien is
referring to the Cambrian explosion and from then to now.


I have no idea what you meant by that.

Me neither. That's apparently why he dangled the post in your
group.

Now I think I know. Chien was apparently claiming that Gould called the
Cambrian explosion "the trade secret of paleontology" when in fact Gould
was referring to the apparent general stasis within species.

Well, no, it was a more general comment from Gould than that, he
said:
http://www.earthhistory.co.uk/propos...-trade-secret/
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as
the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our
textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest
is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
S. J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, p 179 (1980)

Dr. Chien sited his source as being from Johnson's book so I suppose
it remains to be seen how accurate Johnson was. It seems Gould has
made that comment throughout the years, perhaps in different contexts.
However, it's a small point and I doubt that's why your group was recruited.

To set you, Chien, and Johnson straight on what Gould was actually
talking about? I don't know what could be clearer than quoting Gould
directly explaining what he was actually talking about, but apparently
that's not enough.

Not enough to support your claim about Chein. I don't know in what
context he saw Gould's quote, he used the term "trade secret throughout
the years.

Always in the same context. You are reaching here. If you won't take
Gould's word on what he meant, how can you take Chien's word on what
Johnson's said Gould meant?

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ...
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent
with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during
their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same
as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and direction less.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by
the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
[S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

What point are you trying to make by quoting this? Gould, as he himself
explained above, is talking here about fine-grained transitions between
closely related species, not about transitions between major groups.

It relates to what Dr. Chein said about the record, they are in agreement
here.

No. They are not. This is your misinterpretation, as Gould's own words
telling you that you are wrong should have made clear.

No, they agree with what Chein said. He said they were fully formed
and appeared suddenly. I don't know what part of that you don't get.

The problem here is with the ambiguity of "they". Gould is talking about
species, Chien about phyla. Species and phyla are different.

That is, he's talking about lack of evidence for exactly the sort of
transitions that creationists commonly agree do happen.

He said they look "much the same" as earlier versions. Not exactly
the same, so he is in fact saying that the record agrees with most
creationist's views, *not* disagrees. Micro-evolution is not in
dispute.

Gould is, in the quote above, talking about individual species: they
appear, do not change much during their lifetimes, and disappear. No
"earlier versions" mentioned.

There were no earlier versions, that's the point. He is saying that
they *didn't* evolve.

Gould is saying that? Are you really claiming that S. J. Gould rejected
evolution? Choose your words carefully.

However closely similar species are found
in the record before them, and more such species after them, generally
in a temporal pattern that clearly demonstrates transitions on that
level. Which is what Gould means when he says "Transitional forms are
generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between
larger groups." So when he says transitionals are rare, he means smooth
transitions between, for example, one species of fruit fly and another.
Just the sort of thing you call "micro-evolution" and say is not in dispute.

Is micro-evolution in dispute? anyway you added greatly to his words,
they can speak for themselves.

Apparently they can't, since you refuse to believe that he meant what he
said.

As he says way
above, the evidence for the sort of transitions that creationists think
don't happen is plentiful enough.

Yes, he said that too but Dr. Chein doesn't see any. Seems like
if it was a fact it wouldn't be debatable.

It's Chien. And it's not really debatable, unless you come into it with
a full set of creationist preconceptions, as Chien does.

There's more assertions, you've got a million of them.

"Even before I became a Christian, I had doubts about evolution."

If you will read his bio, he was influenced by conservative Christians
from an early age, long before he became a biologist. His formal
conversion may have come later, but his doubts and his religious beliefs
went hand in hand.

Scientists who
actually work on this do see transitional forms. Again, check out the
Budd & Jensen paper I cited earlier.

More and more assertions. I read an interview of a biologist that actually
wrote at least one book on evolution and now discounts it entirely. I
think you may be projecting some of your bias onto a chosen group.

What biologist? What book? And what can I possibly do to turn my
assertions into evidence that I haven't done already?

Also you may be interested in a growing list of scientists that are
seriously questioning Darwinian Evolution.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:I...ient=firefox-a

This list is bogus.

Oh my.


Many of the signers had no idea it would be used to
support creationism. It was a bait-and-switch that relied on the
ambiguity of "Darwinian evolution" to attract customers. But if you like
lists, try Project Steve:

Well, there's one guy who says he was later embarrassed to get involved,
although the Discovery site is available and makes no bones about
it's intent. He doesn't really say that his view on Darwinian Evolution changed
though, just that he's troubled on how it's used.

Precisely. Have you read the actual statement? *I* could have signed it,
as could most evolutionary biologists. It's not denying that evolution
happens, it's not denying that natural selection is important (merely
saying that it's not the only mechanism of evolution, which is clearly
true), and it calls for careful examination of data, which is what
scientists are always supposed to do. It's entirely innocuous. This has
nothing to do with the way in which the DI is trying to use it.

Nice try. But it actually said:

"...skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life"

That pretty much sums up Darwinian Evolution. The dissent isn't limited to
natural selection.

I still would sign. There are other *known* evolutionary mechanisms
besides random mutation and natural selection.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new..._9_16_2005.asp

And...? Mine's bigger than yours? That means we discount
those who disagree with the majority, no matter what their
creditials are?

Nope. You brought up the list as if it proved something.

It does. If you were honest you would admit it. It refutes your theory
that scientists that study Darwinian evolution agree with it.

Didn't say anything about Darwinian evolution, actually. I said
"Scientists who actually work on this do see transitional forms". And by
"this" I meant Cambrian paleontology. How many of the signers of that
document do you imagine don't believe there are transitional forms? How
would you know?

I'm merely
countering with a list of my own. If your list proves anything, my list
disproves it a lot louder. If my list proves nothing, so does yours. You
pick.

Wrong. The question had nothing to who had the bigger numbers.
Maybe you need to re-read the post.

Maybe you need to make clear what you are claiming this list shows, and
how it has anything to do with the existence, or lack thereof, of
transitional fossils in the Cambrian.

You do make alot of statements by assertion,
guilt by association or innuendo. Maybe the signers are sick of it
and want a little more perspective and scientific objectivity?

Assertion, yes. But I've given you the tools to check my assertions.

Yes, more assertions. I've given you tools to get a balanced education.

Scientific papers are just assertions? Well, I suppose they are. We do
have to trust to some degree that the people who write these things
aren't actually lying, unless we duplicate all their research ourselves.
But in what way are your citations any less assertions than mine? At
least mine were to the primary literature. Your guys, at most, are
merely secondary sources.

How would I go about getting beyond assertions? What form would that take?

Guilt by association? Innuendo? No idea what you're talking about.

Right.

Really.

Speculating about the signers, beyond reading what they signed, is
pointless.

How so when they are credible scientists that question your Darwinian
dogma?

Like I said, there's nothing in that statement I wouldn't agree with.

And like I said, the actual statement says nothing I disagree
with. Maybe you should try reading it yourself.

I did, that's why I posted it. Take the blinders off, dude.

What am I missing here?

Well, this is a disappointment. I started off talking about actual
fossils, real facts, and end up in pointless, circular arguments about
what assertions are, and whether Gould meant what he said or something
else. Now what?

John Brock wrote:

In article ,
John Harshman wrote:


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


Also you may be interested in a growing list of scientists that are
seriously questioning Darwinian Evolution.


http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:I...ient=firefox-a


A better link for the Discovery Institute ad is:

http://www.discovery.org/articleFile...ientistsAd.pdf

It seems to be unreachable right now though. (DOS attack?)


This list is bogus. Many of the signers had no idea it would be used to
support creationism. It was a bait-and-switch that relied on the
ambiguity of "Darwinian evolution" to attract customers. But if you like
lists, try Project Steve:


http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new..._9_16_2005.asp


Hmmm..., do you know for a fact that "many" of the signers didn't
know what they were getting into, and don't support the Discovery
Institute's agenda? I just assumed, in a country with an many
fundamentalist Christians as the US, that one would have no trouble
lining up a short list of scientists of one sort or another who
supported Creationism. Scientists are human after all, and if you
look hard enough you can find scientists who believe in UFOs, or
ghosts, or astrology, or all kinds of crazy stuff. So it didn't
occur to me that the list might actually be phony in some way.
What reason do you have to believe that this is so?

NCSE contacted as a number of scientists on the list. Here's the story.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art...11_29_2001.asp

It doesn't have any hard numbers, so perhaps I should not be confident
of "many". One scientist has asked to have his name removed, though,
after realizing what the list was being used for. Somebody else posted
the reference for that.

When I first saw the Discovery Institute ad (IIRC, back in September
2001 -- *very* bad timing for the Discovery Institute!) my first
thought was not that the list might have been faked, but rather
how patheticly weak it was. Yes, at the beginning of the list
there were a few names I recognized, like the physicist Frank Tipler
(co-author with John D. Barrow of a very interesting book on the
Anthropic Principle in physics). But hey!, what is a physicist
doing on this list anyway? In fact it was blazingly obvious that
the Discovery Institute had to scrape the bottom of the barrel to
get even 100 names. There were an awful lot of physicists and
chemists and mathematicians and engineers, which is to say, people
with no special expertise in evolutionary science. (A Postdoctoral
Researcher in Internal Medicine? An Assistant Professor of Urban
& Community Forestry?? WTF???). There were an awful lot of obscure
institutions, such as Biola University, a fundamentalist Christian
college which was profiled in the New York Times Magazine a little
while back, and which accounts for a full four percent of the list.
(Nobody who accepts evolution gets a position at Biola). They even
padded the list with people who, other than a PhD in this or that
(Anthropology? Philosophy of Biology?), seem to have had no
credentials whatsoever worth listing. (Heck, if I had finished my
dissertation I could have made the list myself). All in all, truly
a sad effort.

Of course, the target audience is not going to know this. When
scientists talk seriously about science, their intended audience
tends to be -- for obvious reasons -- people who are capable of
understanding what they are talking about, i.e., other scientists.
If the scientific community had rejected Einstein's theories, do
you think there is any chance he might have reacted by going around
to school boards and trying to convince the members that Relativity
should be taught in their schools, because he was right and all
the other scientists were wrong, and here's why? Not bloody likely!
But the target audience of the Discovery Institute is precisely
people who don't know much about evolution, and who will be impressed
by a list of 100 people (wow!) with academic degrees (wow!), no
matter how bogus this list might be in real terms. (Actually I
think this is one of the defining characteristics of pseudo-science
in general: far more effort is put into persuading non-scientists
than scientists). Sad, but very typical of the Creationist PR
campaign.

wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

wrote:
...

The existance of some transitional species is supportive of
slow (micro) mutation and natural selection while the gaps
leave open the possibility of macromutation.


Neither of these is true.

Hmm, How come?

Transitional species say nothing about the mechanism that caused the
transitions. If, as very, very rarely happens, you see a smooth
transitional series between two morphologies (and have managed to
convince yourself that it's a true evolutionary transition and not any
of the various phenomena that can mimic one), then you have shown that
the transition was gradual, and so have ruled out macromutaion in that
one exceedingly rare case. But you can't have any real idea of whether
natural selection was responsible for the change or not.

Gaps may leave open the theoretical possibility of macromutation, but
unless we understand nothing about how evolution works they aren't a
viable mechanism of change.

Essentially, you are asking the fossil record to tell us more than it's
capable of.

I looked it up and posted a good article that agreed with you.
Macro mutation would seem to be more detrimental than not.
I don't think he reads the links.

Evidently you missed my reply:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.w...e=source&hl=en
It is down near the bottom.

wrote:
SNIP


The problem is that public education is the worst of all possible
worlds.


How does it compare to a world with no schools, or don't you
consider that possible?


How on earth did you get to "no schools" from no *public* schools? The
majority of us have the means and willingness to educate our children
(and the parents who do not have children who are lost no matter what we
do). The significant reduction in local taxation engendered by ending
the public school system would provide more than enough funding for
individuals to band together to create quality private education of
their own choosing with an appropriate level of accountability. So much
so, that - based on historical behavior - there would be plenty left
over to offer "free" education as a matter of charity to the genuinely
underprivileged.


You would have us believe that ALL of the public schools, or
at least so many of them, are so bad as to be a complete
or nearly complete failure.

I don't believe that. But, I do believe that public education is a bad
deal. It costs too much, has insufficient accountability to those who
pick up the tab, cannot refuse access to even the biggest troublemakers,
cannot force parents to pay attention, and worst of all, opens up the
curriculum to debates about what should- and should not be taught a la
this very thread.



... Public schools are required
to admit everyone and try as best they can to reflect the ideas and
values of the entire society - clearly an impossible task. Yes,
there is some slight residual effect wherein some education is better than
none, but the cost/benefit ratio is (IMO) not worth it. We are already
losing students today under the public system (to drugs, gangs, etc.).
Why not just admit that some percentage will always be lost and optimize
the system for the majority - i.e., Privately run and funded schools that
can enforce order and make education a priority...



Obviously:

Many of those who will always be lost have parents who can
afford to send them to private schools even if they fail all
their courses. While the management of all of those private
schools would rather not have students that fail many will
consider the receipt of tuition payment from the parents
to be more important than the success of the students.

Ah, but the money they waste so profligately is *private*.
It has not been extracted from the hands of the good citizens
of that community by threat of government force. The voluntary
misuse of funds - however stupid - is none of my concern so long
as those funds are not mine in any way, shape, or form (unless the
use of such funds harms in some way).


Meanwhile, many of that majority who would do well, or at
least acceptably in school will NOT have parents who can
afford to send them to private schools.

I disagree. We managed to educate a considerable portion
of the population - most of it less than middle class -
more-or-less privately up through something like the end
of the 19th Century. There is plenty of eleemosynary
spirit left in this country for people who absolutely
could not afford to take care of their children. Perhaps
too, this would serve as a future incentive for people in
these circumstances to only have the children they can afford.


I agree that public schools CAN be terribly inadequate, in-
efficient, and dangerous. Rather than looking at the
best of the public schools and trying to appy that to the
others, you propose a 'social Darwinism' of the worse sort.

Feh!


No, I propose we stop using the force of government (or the threat
of it) to make most of us (who *do* pay attention and care for
our offspring) pick up the tab for the irresponsible minority
of people who have children they either cannot afford or cannot
be bothered to raise responsibly. I also am tired up picking up
the tab for a system that systematically indocrinates children
with collectivist political ideology, offensive (to many) moral
values, and a lousy perspective about their nation and its place
in the world.

P.S. By any reasonable definition, I grew up "poor", and English
was my second written/read language. I also attended nothing
but private universities and did so without
a dime of long-term collegiate debt. The secret? Get a job
(or two, three...) and pay your own way. I had the other
piece of magic on my side - a family that paid attention and
made education a priority. *No* amount of tax money will buy
that if it is not already extant in a family, so why bother
even trying?

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

John Wilkins wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

John Wilkins wrote:



John Harshman wrote:



John Wilkins wrote:





John Harshman wrote:





wrote:







John Harshman wrote:







...

And here's a chart I was looking for before that you will find
instructive: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html


I just have to ask, What does he mean by 'groups'?


The chart means "phyla".


IOW, some sort of taxonomic object (clade) that strikes people as
significantly different enough to rank thus...


I always liked Nitecki's concept: they're phyla if we can't tell what
else they're related to. If we could tell (when we named them, that is)
they wouldn't be phyla.


So the Bush family is a phylum?


No, I think it's clear that they go with the weasels.


Odd. I thought they'd be Poaceae-dwelling Ophidians.

Common mistake. They just sell the oil from them.

John Wilkins wrote:

wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...


He said it's the site of the first animals found in the early Cambrian times.
I asked why that was wrong and you countered with findings in
the Vendian period. That doesn't make sense.



Note the use of 'earliest Cambrian' and also note the relationship
between Vendian and Cambrian.


Also note that "Vendian" is now "Ediacaran".

Only if you believe in the authority of self-appointed committees.

John Harshman wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:


John Harshman wrote:


John Wilkins wrote:




John Harshman wrote:




John Wilkins wrote:






John Harshman wrote:






wrote:








John Harshman wrote:








...

And here's a chart I was looking for before that you will find
instructive: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html


I just have to ask, What does he mean by 'groups'?


The chart means "phyla".


IOW, some sort of taxonomic object (clade) that strikes people as
significantly different enough to rank thus...


I always liked Nitecki's concept: they're phyla if we can't tell what
else they're related to. If we could tell (when we named them, that is)
they wouldn't be phyla.


So the Bush family is a phylum?


No, I think it's clear that they go with the weasels.


Odd. I thought they'd be Poaceae-dwelling Ophidians.


Common mistake. They just sell the oil from them.

Aha, so *Rove* is a Poacean Ophidian?

--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122

John Harshman wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:


wrote:


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...



He said it's the site of the first animals found in the early Cambrian times.
I asked why that was wrong and you countered with findings in
the Vendian period. That doesn't make sense.



Note the use of 'earliest Cambrian' and also note the relationship
between Vendian and Cambrian.


Also note that "Vendian" is now "Ediacaran".


Only if you believe in the authority of self-appointed committees.

Like the International Union of Geological Sciences International Commission
on Stratigraphy (ICS)?

--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122

John Harshman wrote:
wrote:

...
...

The existance of some transitional species is supportive of
slow (micro) mutation and natural selection while the gaps
leave open the possibility of macromutation.


Neither of these is true.

Hmm, How come?

Transitional species say nothing about the mechanism that caused the
transitions. If, as very, very rarely happens, you see a smooth
transitional series between two morphologies (and have managed to
convince yourself that it's a true evolutionary transition and not any
of the various phenomena that can mimic one), then you have shown that
the transition was gradual, and so have ruled out macromutaion in that
one exceedingly rare case. But you can't have any real idea of whether
natural selection was responsible for the change or not.

So 'supportive' was too strong a term? How about
'not inconsistant with'?


Gaps may leave open the theoretical possibility of macromutation, but
unless we understand nothing about how evolution works they aren't a
viable mechanism of change.

The first part sonds like what I wrote, I appreciate your your
further comments.


Essentially, you are asking the fossil record to tell us more than it's
capable of.


--

FF

John Wilkins wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

John Wilkins wrote:



wrote:



Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...




He said it's the site of the first animals found in the early Cambrian times.
I asked why that was wrong and you countered with findings in
the Vendian period. That doesn't make sense.



Note the use of 'earliest Cambrian' and also note the relationship
between Vendian and Cambrian.


Also note that "Vendian" is now "Ediacaran".


Only if you believe in the authority of self-appointed committees.


Like the International Union of Geological Sciences International Commission
on Stratigraphy (ICS)?

That's right. Free Gondwanaland!

wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

wrote:

...

...


The existance of some transitional species is supportive of
slow (micro) mutation and natural selection while the gaps
leave open the possibility of macromutation.


Neither of these is true.

Hmm, How come?

Transitional species say nothing about the mechanism that caused the
transitions. If, as very, very rarely happens, you see a smooth
transitional series between two morphologies (and have managed to
convince yourself that it's a true evolutionary transition and not any
of the various phenomena that can mimic one), then you have shown that
the transition was gradual, and so have ruled out macromutaion in that
one exceedingly rare case. But you can't have any real idea of whether
natural selection was responsible for the change or not.


So 'supportive' was too strong a term? How about
'not inconsistant with'?

Sure.

Gaps may leave open the theoretical possibility of macromutation, but
unless we understand nothing about how evolution works they aren't a
viable mechanism of change.

The first part sonds like what I wrote, I appreciate your your
further comments.


Essentially, you are asking the fossil record to tell us more than it's
capable of.

By the way, the proper newsgroup for all this is really talk.origins. In
theory, sci.bio.paleontology is limited to discussing actual science,
not creationism. Feel free to change the group list.

John Harshman wrote:
John Wilkins wrote:


John Harshman wrote:


John Wilkins wrote:




wrote:




Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

...





He said it's the site of the first animals found in the early Cambrian times.
I asked why that was wrong and you countered with findings in
the Vendian period. That doesn't make sense.



Note the use of 'earliest Cambrian' and also note the relationship
between Vendian and Cambrian.


Also note that "Vendian" is now "Ediacaran".


Only if you believe in the authority of self-appointed committees.


Like the International Union of Geological Sciences International Commission
on Stratigraphy (ICS)?


That's right. Free Gondwanaland!

You can't be a radical if you reject the Internationale, I mean International
Union of Geological Sciences, comrade.

--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122

John Harshman wrote:
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


"John Harshman"


Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


You're very generous. He didn't claim to have made discoveries there
but he spent time with those who had at the site and presents his
visit with an international group as being informed to what the discoveries
were. those were his findings, you don't need to be so defensive.

I'm just saying that "findings" is a bit of a fancy term to apply to
what he did. That's all.

"Findings" is fancy? I don't agree.


OK. No big deal.


He said it's the site of the first animals found in the early Cambrian times.
I asked why that was wrong and you countered with findings in
the Vendian period. That doesn't make sense.

The clear implication was not just that they were the first Cambrian
animals, but that they were the first animals.

Maybe to you but he said:

"A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla
of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered
during that period of time..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Otherwise his claim makes
no sense. At any rate, it's wrong even if you make that restriction.
There are earlier animal fossils, even in the Cambrian, as I have
explained already.

Where does he say there was no earlier life?


Earlier *animals*.


Yes, that's what I meant to say.


Why did you cut your quote off in mid-sentence? Oh, I
see. Because it's where he says there were no earlier animals: "A simple
way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different
groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that
period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up
to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very
beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist
now."

What do you think "in the very, very beginning" means?

In context he was referring to the Cambrian Explosion...

"How then did you come to study the Cambrian "explosion of Life"?

The sites that he mentioned are the famous CE sites.


And this claim of over 50 phyla is just wrong. Show me a reference to
that in the scientific literature. Give me a count.

I'm not going to spend too much time researching it but a
quick find is:

http://insectzoo.msstate.edu/Student...ification.html
"There are more than 30 phyla..."

What's your claim?




The Chengjiang is the earliest well-preserved,
soft-bodied, diverse Cambrian fauna.

Yes, that's what he said

"But it turns out that the China site is much older, and the preservation
of the specimens is much, much finer."


That's comparing it to the Burgess Shale, which is younger. Not to any
of the older deposits, some of them of Cambrian age, that also have
animal fossils.

Again, he was talking about the subject matter, during the Cambrian
period.



"Since the Cambrian period, we have only die-off and no new groups
coming about, ever. There's only one little exception cited the group
known as bryozoans, which are found in the fossil record a little later.
However, most people think we just haven't found it yet; that group was
probably also present in the Cambrian explosion."


He agrees on the bryozoans, but he doesn't appear to know that the
majority of modern phyla have no fossil record. We have no data to tell
us whether Bryozoa originated in the Ordovician or earlier. But if they
did originate earlier, then they only developed mineralized skeletons in
the Ordovician.

Can you explain your assertion? What leads you to believe that he
doesn't know that the majority of modern phyla have no fossil record?

Because he's making claims about the total number of phyla through
history. How can he do that if there's no record of the majority of them
until the present?

He says the consensus is...

"(Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while,
but then the consensus became 50-plus.)"


Whose consensus? None that I know of. And I know the literature pretty well.


He didn't say, he wasn't on trial. He seemed to be familiar
with the subject.


You essentially repeat what he said, i.e. that the Bryozoa was found in
the later period. How does that lead to your conclusion?

It doesn't. The rest of what I said leads to that conclusion.

That makes less sense.


Again: He claims to know that no new phyla have originate since the
Cambrian. How does he know? On the basis of fossils? But, like I said,
half of all modern phyla have no fossil record. So how can he possibly
know this?


I imagine he reads too but he didn't say. It is consistent
with what I have seen though.

http://www.priweb.org/ed/ICTHOL/THOL.../THOLpctoc.htm
Furthermore, (1), few or no new phyla show up after the Cambrian...



As for transitionals, there are many such in the Chengjiang, including
Yunnanozoon.

You are making a number of claims by assertion. He is chairman of the
biology department at the University of San Francisco and he said:

Actually, he's not chairman now. And what relevance does that have,
whether he is or isn't? Argument from authority?

He was chairman at the time but if he was as clueless as you suggested
it seems unlikely he would have had the position. On the contrary, so
far your argument is entirely on authority, which is why I asked for
credentials.


I'm arguing from authority, and therefore you have to know my
credentials? But I'm not arguing from authority.


Yes you are. You want us to dismiss Dr. Chein, although he is or was
chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco
on your word. But you are an anonymous guy on usenet.


And his being chairman
of a department had nothing to do with his knowledge of Cambrian
fossils.

"A department"?


He has never published on the subject, and as far as I can tell
never taught a course on the subject. He has no scholarly footprint in
paleontology.

All speculation of course but all that pales in comparison to your
accomplishments?


What he does is study the effects of pollution on marine
invertebrates. This is all irrelevant to the question.


Odd that the Chinese invited him to lead an international
team then isn't it? Actually he explained the relevence:

"In studying marine organisms, and mainly the invertebrate groups,
I have a clear vision of the distinct characteristics of each phyla."


"In studying marine organisms, and mainly the invertebrate groups, I have a
clear vision of the distinct characteristics of each phyla."

I guess at this point I need to ask you what your credentials are, no
offense, but generalized accusations are a poor substitute for rebuttal.

Credentials are meaningless.

I see. So if we were smart we would disregard the chairman of the Biology
Dept. and believe some guy on usenet because he says so.


No. If you were smart you wouldn't believe anyone, even the chairman of
the biology department, because he says so. I have given you citations
and urls for my claims. Either look them up or don't.

You are overstating things again. You've provided very little beyond assertions.
I've post more links and references than you. Either read them or don't.
You also downplay what I've read elsewhere and assume that's all I've seen.




I certainly have better credentials than he
does, for what that's worth.

Consider me skeptical. Your assertions are getting a bit old though.


Feel free to be skeptical. It's a good attitude to take when examining
creationist claims.


But not Darwinian claims? Is that open minded?


I will continue to assert that my credentials are
unimportant.

I think we can read between the lines.



If you really believe only arguments from authority,

Nope. In fact I question the status quo, hense our disagreement.


and
insist upon it, I will tell you. But I'm giving you one more opportunity
to realize that credentials don't matter before I do.

What happens after this once more? You whip out your
secret decoder ring?


But my point is that it's worth nothing, so
I resist discussing the matter. What's worth something is the actual
information. I have made claims. You could verify them by reading the
primary scientific literature. There are also a few popular books, and
web sites too, but in the latter case there are also many web sites with
misinformation (like the Chien interview).

It seems he's better suited to understand the literature than you or I,
furthermore, he's actually been to the site. You like to back up
assertions with even more assertions. I hope you realize that it
isn't a very scholarly approach.


The only things I can do here are make assertions and direct you to
places where you can confirm what I said. What more can anyone do?


But I haven't seen any confirmation, you are bluffing again.



You will just have to decide
somehow.

Assertions and posturing don't go far with me.


I have already recommended an important scientific paper. Don't
know what else to do.

Important because it agrees with you no doubt.


You could say this about any reference I gave you. What would you take
as evidence?


Proof of macro-evolution would be a good start.


But let's try. Which of my claims do you specifically doubt?

All of the ones so far that didn't mimick Dr. Chein's interview.


Pick one or a few, specifically.


Transitions of phyla.


I'll try to
back them up. But that may require citing more literature, and unless
you actually go look up the papers, you will have to take my word.

I thought you didn't like arguments by authority?


If you think I'm lying about the references I cite, you are free to look
them up. Argument from authority is a bit different from my claim that I
am not lying about things I have read, and you haven't.


Anyone can say go read this or that book and declare the high ground.
No sale.


As for books, Simon Conway Morris' book The Crucible of Creation is
pretty good, and corrects many of the errors of Wonderful Life (not to
pick on Gould, but science advances).

Unfortunantly Gould doesn't seem to be evolving.


That's death for you.

I meant his theory, not his untimely demise.


Also, Andy Knoll's book Life on a
Young Planet gives you a quick rundown on that and much more. This is a
good scientific review of the general chronology that might help:
Valentine, J. W., D. Jablonski, and D. H. Erwin. 1999. Fossils,
molecules, and embryos: New perspectives on the Cambrian explosion.
Development 126:851-859.

Thanks, I'd like to recommend this for a start to see an alternative perspective:
http://www.origins.org/menus/book.html


The site doesn't seem to be in working condition right now. Perhaps later.


"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether
through design or stupidity, I do not know-- as admitting that the
fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are
generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between
larger groups."

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens
Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New
York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.



Well, if it was really that simple he wouldn't need "punctuated equilibrium"
would he? Clearly the record is a stumbling block with myriads of
theories so he seems to be downplaying the objection quite a bit.
1983 was a while ago, are they any closer to an answer?

The point is actually that you don't even know the question.

We go from wild sweeping allegations to outright insults. That didn't
take long now did it? You also avoided my question, are we any closer
to an answer?

Not an insult, but an observation. An answer to what, exactly?

hint - You quoted Gould on why he proposed PE. That was
quite awhile ago, did he prove it yet?


That's a complicated question, since PE is a complicated theory. I would
say that he hasn't (and of course is not likely to in the future, being
dead and all). We can take apart PE into several parts: 1) stasis, 2)
morphological punctuation, 3) coincidence of 2 with speciation, 4)
Gould's proposed mechanism, essentially Mayr's peripatric speciation
theory. Of these, 1 is easiest to show, but I don't think it has yet
been adequately demonstrated as a widespread phenomenon. 2 is a bit
harder, requiring very good stratigraphic and geographic controls. It
may have been demonstrated in some species, mostly forams. 3 is, I
think, impossible from the fossil record, simply because we can only try
to recognize species based on morphological change, and the assertion
then becomes circular. And the genetics on 4 are not looking good.


I see. So PE hasn't been proved.


PE has a
problem, in that it's really impossible to test it using the fossil
record.

How do you propose we test it?

I'm not sure it can be tested except by looking at the process of
speciation happening right now.

Wait a minute there. Micro-evolution isn't even in dispute. Your scientific
approach is an assertion. Micro doesn't prove macro.



I'm not clear what you mean by micro or macro. I sense you are using
them in ways that are different from what biologists mean.


I believe they do know what is meant by the terms. How could
they not be? Unless they are totally unfamilia with any dissenting
view to Darwinian theory.


At any rate,
macroevolution by any definition doesn't depend on PE, or even on
fossils. The best evidence for macroevolution is the nested hierarchy of
living species, especially the DNA sequence evidence.


Yep. It's an assertion based on a belief.


But I hope at least you will retract your claim about what Gould
said.

What for? You should explain first why his theory is reasonable.
ID gets flak because it isn't testable so why doesn't Gould, or anyone
else, need to meet the same challenge?

I don't think his theory is reasonable. Gould does indeed need to meet
the testability challenge. All that has nothing to do with your
misinterpretation of what he was claiming.

Or your assertion that I misinterpreted it.



You read the quote from Gould in which he specifically says that
creationists misinterpreted him in exactly the way you do here, right?
Your choices are to admit this, or to claim that Gould never said it and
I made up the quote.


Backing up an assertion with another assertion is poor form.



For more on that, go he
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot....html#quote3.2

A good rebuttal site created to balance their view is:
http://www.trueorigin.org/

I don't find it very good. Perhaps you are too credulous.

More assertions.

Merely reporting my experience with that site.

Merely reporting another assertion.


Give me an argument from the site that you like. We'll look at it together.

The argument depends on you but here's a goood point they mention:

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the
Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several)
which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of
circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [
Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass,
Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

Dr Gould was referring to the entire fossil record, Dr Chien is
referring to the Cambrian explosion and from then to now.


I have no idea what you meant by that.

Me neither. That's apparently why he dangled the post in your
group.

Now I think I know. Chien was apparently claiming that Gould called the
Cambrian explosion "the trade secret of paleontology" when in fact Gould
was referring to the apparent general stasis within species.

Well, no, it was a more general comment from Gould than that, he
said:
http://www.earthhistory.co.uk/propos...-trade-secret/
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as
the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our
textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest
is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
S. J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, p 179 (1980)

Dr. Chien sited his source as being from Johnson's book so I suppose
it remains to be seen how accurate Johnson was. It seems Gould has
made that comment throughout the years, perhaps in different contexts.
However, it's a small point and I doubt that's why your group was recruited.

To set you, Chien, and Johnson straight on what Gould was actually
talking about? I don't know what could be clearer than quoting Gould
directly explaining what he was actually talking about, but apparently
that's not enough.

Not enough to support your claim about Chein. I don't know in what
context he saw Gould's quote, he used the term "trade secret throughout
the years.


Always in the same context. You are reaching here. If you won't take
Gould's word on what he meant, how can you take Chien's word on what
Johnson's said Gould meant?


Why do you assume Chein is lying? What would he have to
gain, it's what he understood from the book.



http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ...
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent
with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during
their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same
as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and direction less.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by
the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
[S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

What point are you trying to make by quoting this? Gould, as he himself
explained above, is talking here about fine-grained transitions between
closely related species, not about transitions between major groups.

It relates to what Dr. Chein said about the record, they are in agreement
here.

No. They are not. This is your misinterpretation, as Gould's own words
telling you that you are wrong should have made clear.

No, they agree with what Chein said. He said they were fully formed
and appeared suddenly. I don't know what part of that you don't get.

The problem here is with the ambiguity of "they". Gould is talking about
species, Chien about phyla. Species and phyla are different.

Chein characterizes his comments by talking about evolution in general.


That is, he's talking about lack of evidence for exactly the sort of
transitions that creationists commonly agree do happen.

He said they look "much the same" as earlier versions. Not exactly
the same, so he is in fact saying that the record agrees with most
creationist's views, *not* disagrees. Micro-evolution is not in
dispute.

Gould is, in the quote above, talking about individual species: they
appear, do not change much during their lifetimes, and disappear. No
"earlier versions" mentioned.

There were no earlier versions, that's the point. He is saying that
they *didn't* evolve.


Gould is saying that? Are you really claiming that S. J. Gould rejected
evolution? Choose your words carefully.

He apparently did in spite of the fossil record.


However closely similar species are found
in the record before them, and more such species after them, generally
in a temporal pattern that clearly demonstrates transitions on that
level. Which is what Gould means when he says "Transitional forms are
generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between
larger groups." So when he says transitionals are rare, he means smooth
transitions between, for example, one species of fruit fly and another.
Just the sort of thing you call "micro-evolution" and say is not in dispute.

Is micro-evolution in dispute? anyway you added greatly to his words,
they can speak for themselves.

Apparently they can't, since you refuse to believe that he meant what he
said.

It's the implication of what he said. He sounds too much like an
appologist trying to make facts fit a belief.


As he says way
above, the evidence for the sort of transitions that creationists think
don't happen is plentiful enough.

Yes, he said that too but Dr. Chein doesn't see any. Seems like
if it was a fact it wouldn't be debatable.

It's Chien. And it's not really debatable, unless you come into it with
a full set of creationist preconceptions, as Chien does.

There's more assertions, you've got a million of them.

"Even before I became a Christian, I had doubts about evolution."


If you will read his bio, he was influenced by conservative Christians
from an early age, long before he became a biologist. His formal
conversion may have come later, but his doubts and his religious beliefs
went hand in hand.

Where does it say that? Do you know many Christians believe
in the whole evolutionary process, outside of a created start.
Aren't you speculating a bit?



Scientists who
actually work on this do see transitional forms. Again, check out the
Budd & Jensen paper I cited earlier.

More and more assertions. I read an interview of a biologist that actually
wrote at least one book on evolution and now discounts it entirely. I
think you may be projecting some of your bias onto a chosen group.


What biologist? What book? And what can I possibly do to turn my
assertions into evidence that I haven't done already?

Citing a book is evidence? I can list a few too. I'll try to
find the biologist, it was a story on how he was head of
the department until he could no longer accept Darwinian
evolution. He worked the lab at the time of the interview.


Also you may be interested in a growing list of scientists that are
seriously questioning Darwinian Evolution.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:I...ient=firefox-a

This list is bogus.

Oh my.



Many of the signers had no idea it would be used to
support creationism. It was a bait-and-switch that relied on the
ambiguity of "Darwinian evolution" to attract customers. But if you like
lists, try Project Steve:

Well, there's one guy who says he was later embarrassed to get involved,
although the Discovery site is available and makes no bones about
it's intent. He doesn't really say that his view on Darwinian Evolution changed
though, just that he's troubled on how it's used.

Precisely. Have you read the actual statement? *I* could have signed it,
as could most evolutionary biologists. It's not denying that evolution
happens, it's not denying that natural selection is important (merely
saying that it's not the only mechanism of evolution, which is clearly
true), and it calls for careful examination of data, which is what
scientists are always supposed to do. It's entirely innocuous. This has
nothing to do with the way in which the DI is trying to use it.

Nice try. But it actually said:

"...skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life"

That pretty much sums up Darwinian Evolution. The dissent isn't limited to
natural selection.


I still would sign. There are other *known* evolutionary mechanisms
besides random mutation and natural selection.


So you think they were hoodwinked and didn't think anything odd
about signing a protest petition against Darwinian theory? Do you
suppose they thought they were signing up for a door prize?


http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new..._9_16_2005.asp

And...? Mine's bigger than yours? That means we discount
those who disagree with the majority, no matter what their
creditials are?

Nope. You brought up the list as if it proved something.

It does. If you were honest you would admit it. It refutes your theory
that scientists that study Darwinian evolution agree with it.


Didn't say anything about Darwinian evolution, actually. I said
"Scientists who actually work on this do see transitional forms". And by
"this" I meant Cambrian paleontology. How many of the signers of that
document do you imagine don't believe there are transitional forms? How
would you know?

Because it would make no sense for them to sign the list. Darwinian
evolution is based heavily on transitional forms.


I'm merely
countering with a list of my own. If your list proves anything, my list
disproves it a lot louder. If my list proves nothing, so does yours. You
pick.

Wrong. The question had nothing to who had the bigger numbers.
Maybe you need to re-read the post.


Maybe you need to make clear what you are claiming this list shows, and
how it has anything to do with the existence, or lack thereof, of
transitional fossils in the Cambrian.


It was part of the conversation that you started participating in.


You do make alot of statements by assertion,
guilt by association or innuendo. Maybe the signers are sick of it
and want a little more perspective and scientific objectivity?

Assertion, yes. But I've given you the tools to check my assertions.

Yes, more assertions. I've given you tools to get a balanced education.

Scientific papers are just assertions? Well, I suppose they are. We do
have to trust to some degree that the people who write these things
aren't actually lying,


They aren't lying if they believe it. You can't believe that there
is no bias at all in the scientific community.


unless we duplicate all their research ourselves.
But in what way are your citations any less assertions than mine? At
least mine were to the primary literature. Your guys, at most, are
merely secondary sources.

How would I go about getting beyond assertions? What form would that take?


Follow my example. Post a link with the relevent info. (without trying
to bury folks with it)


Guilt by association? Innuendo? No idea what you're talking about.

Right.


Really.

Really.


Speculating about the signers, beyond reading what they signed, is
pointless.

How so when they are credible scientists that question your Darwinian
dogma?


Like I said, there's nothing in that statement I wouldn't agree with.

You are skeptical of random mutation and natural selection to
account for the complexity of life? That's good but what else
would you suppose it could be?


And like I said, the actual statement says nothing I disagree
with. Maybe you should try reading it yourself.

I did, that's why I posted it. Take the blinders off, dude.


What am I missing here?

I think the skeptical part.


Well, this is a disappointment. I started off talking about actual
fossils, real facts, and end up in pointless, circular arguments about
what assertions are, and whether Gould meant what he said or something
else. Now what?

Chein wasn't talking about actual fossils? And Gould's comments
do have implications that he may not have intended but I don't
think he could get around his bias.

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
wrote:
SNIP


The problem is that public education is the worst of all possible
worlds.


How does it compare to a world with no schools, or don't you
consider that possible?


How on earth did you get to "no schools" from no *public* schools?

What you actually wrote was "...public education is the worst of
all possible worlds." 'Worst' is a superlative. In order for
your statement to be true it must be the case that no worst
worlds are possible. If you were toagree that a world with
no schools would be worst, and that such a world is possible,
then you would be admitting that you were wrong. So instead,
you responded with a rhetorical question of your own. Since I
realize that you posed yours in order to avoid having to
admit that you were wrong, I decline to answer yours.

Care to answer mine now?

The
majority of us have the means and willingness to educate our children
(and the parents who do not have children who are lost no matter what we
do).

Not clear on the meaning of that parenthetical remark.

The significant reduction in local taxation engendered by ending
the public school system would provide more than enough funding for
individuals to band together to create quality private education of
their own choosing with an appropriate level of accountability. So much
so, that - based on historical behavior - there would be plenty left
over to offer "free" education as a matter of charity to the genuinely
underprivileged.

I suspect you overestimate the generosity of those parents.



You would have us believe that ALL of the public schools, or
at least so many of them, are so bad as to be a complete
or nearly complete failure.

I don't believe that. But, I do believe that public education is a bad
deal. It costs too much, has insufficient accountability to those who
pick up the tab, cannot refuse access to even the biggest troublemakers,
cannot force parents to pay attention, and worst of all, opens up the
curriculum to debates about what should- and should not be taught a la
this very thread.

I challenge the comment about not being able to keep out the
biggest troublemakers. There is considerable geographical
variation and has been considerable historical variation over
the 20th century as to whom the public schools may or may not
exclude for any simple blanket statement on the matter to
be correct.


...
Why not just admit that some percentage will always be lost and optimize
the system for the majority - i.e., Privately run and funded schools that
can enforce order and make education a priority...



Obviously:

Many of those who will always be lost have parents who can
afford to send them to private schools even if they fail all
their courses. While the management of all of those private
schools would rather not have students that fail many will
consider the receipt of tuition payment from the parents
to be more important than the success of the students.

Ah, but the money they waste so profligately is *private*.

Non sequitor in regard to the point above but FWIW relevent
to your remarks below.

It has not been extracted from the hands of the good citizens
of that community by threat of government force.

That is what you say about nearly all taxation. I allow as
it as valid a remark here as whenever else you say it.

The voluntary
misuse of funds - however stupid - is none of my concern so long
as those funds are not mine in any way, shape, or form (unless the
use of such funds harms in some way).


Meanwhile, many of that majority who would do well, or at
least acceptably in school will NOT have parents who can
afford to send them to private schools.

I disagree. We managed to educate a considerable portion
of the population - most of it less than middle class -
more-or-less privately up through something like the end
of the 19th Century.

It might be instructive to compare some idicia of education,
like literacy rates, over the last two hundred years or so.
I would be very much surprised if the peak literacy rate
was achieved prior to the advent of public education. I'd
also be surprised if you care.

There is plenty of eleemosynary
spirit left in this country for people who absolutely
could not afford to take care of their children. Perhaps
too, this would serve as a future incentive for people in
these circumstances to only have the children they can afford.

Again, I think you overetimate human generosity.



I agree that public schools CAN be terribly inadequate, in-
efficient, and dangerous. Rather than looking at the
best of the public schools and trying to appy that to the
others, you propose a 'social Darwinism' of the worse sort.

Feh!


No, I propose we stop using the force of government (or the threat
of it)

By which you mean, again, taxation. See above.

to make most of us (who *do* pay attention and care for
our offspring) pick up the tab for the irresponsible minority
of people who have children they either cannot afford or cannot
be bothered to raise responsibly. I also am tired up picking up
the tab for a system that systematically indocrinates children
with collectivist political ideology, offensive (to many) moral
values, and a lousy perspective about their nation and its place
in the world.

As you know, a example does not prove a trend and a trend is
not the same as ubiquitousness. While there may be some
students and schools consistent with your complaints not
all are, nor I daresay are a majority. Complainst about
the quality of public education should be addressed by
improving that quality, not by throwing away the baby
with the bath. OTOH, tha targument would not apply
if you would remain opposed to public schools regardless
of the quality.

Also as you know, a single counterexample does prove a
possibility. That there are good public school students
and good public schools proves that the system can
work. It is not inevitably doomed to degrade to
what you describe.


P.S. By any reasonable definition, I grew up "poor", and English
was my second written/read language. I also attended nothing
but private universities and did so without
a dime of long-term collegiate debt. The secret? Get a job
(or two, three...) and pay your own way. I had the other
piece of magic on my side - a family that paid attention and
made education a priority. *No* amount of tax money will buy
that if it is not already extant in a family, so why bother
even trying?

The public school system does not have to duplicate your experiences
in order to achieve similar results. It does not even have to
achieve similar results in order to achieve acceptable results.

--

FF

wrote:
Tim Daneliuk wrote:

wrote:
SNIP

The problem is that public education is the worst of all possible
worlds.


How does it compare to a world with no schools, or don't you
consider that possible?


How on earth did you get to "no schools" from no *public* schools?


What you actually wrote was "...public education is the worst of
all possible worlds." 'Worst' is a superlative. In order for

Noted. I'd assumed some long term memory on the context of the
discussion. My Bad.

The
majority of us have the means and willingness to educate our children
(and the parents who do not have children who are lost no matter what we
do).


Not clear on the meaning of that parenthetical remark.

Corrected: (and the parents who do not have this willingness have children ...)


The significant reduction in local taxation engendered by ending
the public school system would provide more than enough funding for
individuals to band together to create quality private education of
their own choosing with an appropriate level of accountability. So much
so, that - based on historical behavior - there would be plenty left
over to offer "free" education as a matter of charity to the genuinely
underprivileged.


I suspect you overestimate the generosity of those parents.

I suspect you don't know what you're talking about. In the face
of egregious taxation, the US private sector (churches, corporations et al)
manage to give generously to all manner of worthy causes. Note that I
said "genuinely underpriveleged". You are not of that category if
your interest in school revolves around selling crack or forming
a gang with your similarly degenerate buddies. Such people are
deserving of nothing from anyone.





You would have us believe that ALL of the public schools, or
at least so many of them, are so bad as to be a complete
or nearly complete failure.

I don't believe that. But, I do believe that public education is a bad
deal. It costs too much, has insufficient accountability to those who
pick up the tab, cannot refuse access to even the biggest troublemakers,
cannot force parents to pay attention, and worst of all, opens up the
curriculum to debates about what should- and should not be taught a la
this very thread.


I challenge the comment about not being able to keep out the
biggest troublemakers. There is considerable geographical
variation and has been considerable historical variation over
the 20th century as to whom the public schools may or may not
exclude for any simple blanket statement on the matter to
be correct.

Only because of the neverending do-gooding and interference of
the courts in private life. A private school can set standards
that must be met for ongoing enrollment such as parental participation,
dress codes, behavior codes, and so forth. These should be enforceable
without government meddling since they are entered into freely by
the parent wishing to educate their child. I went to such an
undergraduate program. It had *very* strict rules about everything
because its roots were deeply religious. Their (very proper) attitude
was, "If you don't like our rules, don't come to school here."
Quite simple and effective.




...

Why not just admit that some percentage will always be lost and optimize
the system for the majority - i.e., Privately run and funded schools that
can enforce order and make education a priority...



Obviously:

Many of those who will always be lost have parents who can
afford to send them to private schools even if they fail all
their courses. While the management of all of those private
schools would rather not have students that fail many will
consider the receipt of tuition payment from the parents
to be more important than the success of the students.

Ah, but the money they waste so profligately is *private*.


Non sequitor in regard to the point above but FWIW relevent
to your remarks below.

It is not a non sequitor. What the parents of privileged
children do and/or the schools that educate them - or try
to - is of no importance to me so long as I do not have
to pay for it.



It has not been extracted from the hands of the good citizens
of that community by threat of government force.


That is what you say about nearly all taxation. I allow as
it as valid a remark here as whenever else you say it.

Taxation as a general method of raising government monies
is a valid method. But the government needs to be restrained
and confined to being in the Freedom business, not in the
Running Everyone Else's Life business.


The voluntary
misuse of funds - however stupid - is none of my concern so long
as those funds are not mine in any way, shape, or form (unless the
use of such funds harms in some way).


Meanwhile, many of that majority who would do well, or at
least acceptably in school will NOT have parents who can
afford to send them to private schools.

I disagree. We managed to educate a considerable portion
of the population - most of it less than middle class -
more-or-less privately up through something like the end
of the 19th Century.


It might be instructive to compare some idicia of education,
like literacy rates, over the last two hundred years or so.
I would be very much surprised if the peak literacy rate
was achieved prior to the advent of public education. I'd
also be surprised if you care.

There's little question that literacy rates today are at likely the
highest in our history. This in no way speaks to the actual
level of "education" people receive. Education is about learning
critical thinking skills, a grasp of what we know so far, some
basic facility in mathematics, language, & science, and most
importantly, the skills to teach oneself what is needed
as life progresses. By those standards, I'd argue that we're
not all that educated these days.



There is plenty of eleemosynary
spirit left in this country for people who absolutely
could not afford to take care of their children. Perhaps
too, this would serve as a future incentive for people in
these circumstances to only have the children they can afford.


Again, I think you overetimate human generosity.


I agree that public schools CAN be terribly inadequate, in-
efficient, and dangerous. Rather than looking at the
best of the public schools and trying to appy that to the
others, you propose a 'social Darwinism' of the worse sort.

Feh!


No, I propose we stop using the force of government (or the threat
of it)


By which you mean, again, taxation. See above.


to make most of us (who *do* pay attention and care for
our offspring) pick up the tab for the irresponsible minority
of people who have children they either cannot afford or cannot
be bothered to raise responsibly. I also am tired up picking up
the tab for a system that systematically indocrinates children
with collectivist political ideology, offensive (to many) moral
values, and a lousy perspective about their nation and its place
in the world.


As you know, a example does not prove a trend and a trend is
not the same as ubiquitousness. While there may be some
students and schools consistent with your complaints not
all are, nor I daresay are a majority. Complainst about

When was the last time you set foot in a public school
below university level (if I may ask). I have had the
recent experience of interacting with high school kids
who attended one of the best schools in their district.
By "interacted", I mean ongoing conversation on- and off with them
over a 4 year period. With one or two noteworthy
exceptions, not a single one of them was remotely prepared
for college. And this was one of the *best* school
districts (the State claims something like top quartile)
in a metro area of 5+ Million. I think my broad brush
assessment of the public system as a whole is likely being too kind...

the quality of public education should be addressed by
improving that quality, not by throwing away the baby
with the bath. OTOH, tha targument would not apply
if you would remain opposed to public schools regardless
of the quality.

I am opposed to them both on principle and in practice.
Take your pick.


Also as you know, a single counterexample does prove a
possibility. That there are good public school students
and good public schools proves that the system can
work. It is not inevitably doomed to degrade to
what you describe.

Sure ... *at some cost*. You can do anything within the
realm of Reality given sufficient funding. I could turn
any inner-city school into a paradise by offering each
resident $1 Million if their child scored above a 1500
on the SAT, for example.



P.S. By any reasonable definition, I grew up "poor", and English
was my second written/read language. I also attended nothing
but private universities and did so without
a dime of long-term collegiate debt. The secret? Get a job
(or two, three...) and pay your own way. I had the other
piece of magic on my side - a family that paid attention and
made education a priority. *No* amount of tax money will buy
that if it is not already extant in a family, so why bother
even trying?


The public school system does not have to duplicate your experiences
in order to achieve similar results. It does not even have to
achieve similar results in order to achieve acceptable results.

Public schools on the whole will never come *close* to achieving
these results on average. These schools have little- or no
accountablility for their results, they have no meaningful way to
demant parental participation, they are legally hamstrung and
cannot on the one hand exclude Bad Actor or discipline them on
the other. The Public School system is, by its very construction,
doomed to fail. The sooner we figure this out and eliminate it,
thereby placing the responsibility where it belongs - on parents -
the sooner we'll get better results. The largest opposition
from this comes from the NEA that doesn't want its ox gored,
and from the various political parasites and their hangers on
who (rightly) see schools as a marvelous opportunity to indocrinate
the students with their own polluted political, social, philosophical,
and or cultural ideals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

John Harshman wrote:

Fletis Humplebacker wrote:



"John Harshman"



Fletis Humplebacker wrote:


You're very generous. He didn't claim to have made discoveries there
but he spent time with those who had at the site and presents his
visit with an international group as being informed to what the discoveries
were. those were his findings, you don't need to be so defensive.

I'm just saying that "findings" is a bit of a fancy term to apply to
what he did. That's all.

"Findings" is fancy? I don't agree.


OK. No big deal.



He said it's the site of the first animals found in the early Cambrian times.
I asked why that was wrong and you countered with findings in
the Vendian period. That doesn't make sense.

The clear implication was not just that they were the first Cambrian
animals, but that they were the first animals.

Maybe to you but he said:

"A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla
of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered
during that period of time..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^



Otherwise his claim makes
no sense. At any rate, it's wrong even if you make that restriction.
There are earlier animal fossils, even in the Cambrian, as I have
explained already.

Where does he say there was no earlier life?


Earlier *animals*.



Yes, that's what I meant to say.



Why did you cut your quote off in mid-sentence? Oh, I
see. Because it's where he says there were no earlier animals: "A simple
way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different
groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that
period of time (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up
to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very
beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist
now."

What do you think "in the very, very beginning" means?


In context he was referring to the Cambrian Explosion...

"How then did you come to study the Cambrian "explosion of Life"?

The sites that he mentioned are the famous CE sites.

So you agree that there are plenty of animal fossils that predate the
Chengjiang? That would seem to make Chien's point a bit less impressive.

And this claim of over 50 phyla is just wrong. Show me a reference to
that in the scientific literature. Give me a count.

I'm not going to spend too much time researching it but a
quick find is:

http://insectzoo.msstate.edu/Student...ification.html
"There are more than 30 phyla..."

What's your claim?

The number varies somewhat depending on how you count, but "more than
30" is fine. The question, though, was about 50 phyla from the Cambrian
explosion, not the number around today.

[snip]

He says the consensus is...

"(Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while,
but then the consensus became 50-plus.)"


Whose consensus? None that I know of. And I know the literature pretty well.

He didn't say, he wasn't on trial. He seemed to be familiar
with the subject.

To you he did. To me he didn't. It's easy to seem like an expert to a
person who knows little about a subject.

You essentially repeat what he said, i.e. that the Bryozoa was found in
the later period. How does that lead to your conclusion?

It doesn't. The rest of what I said leads to that conclusion.

That makes less sense.

Again: He claims to know that no new phyla have originate since the
Cambrian. How does he know? On the basis of fossils? But, like I said,
half of all modern phyla have no fossil record. So how can he possibly
know this?

I imagine he reads too but he didn't say. It is consistent
with what I have seen though.

He reads what? What's consistent with what you have seen, and where?

http://www.priweb.org/ed/ICTHOL/THOL.../THOLpctoc.htm
Furthermore, (1), few or no new phyla show up after the Cambrian...

I too have seen this claimed often. But it's just wrong, as is easy to
demonstrate if you actually look at the fossil record. (For some reason
I can't access that site either. You have a penchant for giving me links
that are not working.)

I've mentioned this chart before. It's pretty good, though I don't agree
about the nematodes:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/phyla/metazoafr.html

As for transitionals, there are many such in the Chengjiang, including
Yunnanozoon.

You are making a number of claims by assertion. He is chairman of the
biology department at the University of San Francisco and he said:

Actually, he's not chairman now. And what relevance does that have,
whether he is or isn't? Argument from authority?

He was chairman at the time but if he was as clueless as you suggested
it seems unlikely he would have had the position. On the contrary, so
far your argument is entirely on authority, which is why I asked for
credentials.

I'm arguing from authority, and therefore you have to know my
credentials? But I'm not arguing from authority.

Yes you are. You want us to dismiss Dr. Chein, although he is or was
chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco
on your word. But you are an anonymous guy on usenet.

The name is Chien. Being chairman of the biology department at the
University of San Francisco does not make you knowledgeable about
Cambrian paleontology.

And his being chairman
of a department had nothing to do with his knowledge of Cambrian
fossils.

"A department"?

Yes.

He has never published on the subject, and as far as I can tell
never taught a course on the subject. He has no scholarly footprint in
paleontology.

All speculation of course but all that pales in comparison to your
accomplishments?

At least I know something about the subject, which Chien apparently does
not.

What he does is study the effects of pollution on marine
invertebrates. This is all irrelevant to the question.

Odd that the Chinese invited him to lead an international
team then isn't it? Actually he explained the relevence:

"In studying marine organisms, and mainly the invertebrate groups,
I have a clear vision of the distinct characteristics of each phyla."

Should be "phylum", by the way. I think that's nonsense. I'm suspecting
he has no acquaintance with recent work that has begun sorting out the
evolutionary relationships of the various phyla. Google "Ecdysozoa".

"In studying marine organisms, and mainly the invertebrate groups, I have a
clear vision of the distinct characteristics of each phyla."

I guess at this point I need to ask you what your credentials are, no
offense, but generalized accusations are a poor substitute for rebuttal.

Credentials are meaningless.

I see. So if we were smart we would disregard the chairman of the Biology
Dept. and believe some guy on usenet because he says so.

No. If you were smart you wouldn't believe anyone, even the chairman of
the biology department, because he says so. I have given you citations
and urls for my claims. Either look them up or don't.

You are overstating things again. You've provided very little beyond assertions.
I've post more links and references than you. Either read them or don't.
You also downplay what I've read elsewhere and assume that's all I've seen.

You post urls to random creationist sites, most of which are to whole
sites, not specifics at all. I have posted real, specific references. If
you have an argument to make, make it.

I certainly have better credentials than he
does, for what that's worth.

Consider me skeptical. Your assertions are getting a bit old though.

Feel free to be skeptical. It's a good attitude to take when examining
creationist claims.

But not Darwinian claims? Is that open minded?

Sure, Darwinian (whatever that means) claims too.

I will continue to assert that my credentials are
unimportant.

I think we can read between the lines.

We?

If you really believe only arguments from authority,

Nope. In fact I question the status quo, hense our disagreement.

Then why do you constantly harp on Dr. Chien's credentials?

and
insist upon it, I will tell you. But I'm giving you one more opportunity
to realize that credentials don't matter before I do.

What happens after this once more? You whip out your
secret decoder ring?

In fact I realize that I have no actual way of proving to you that my
credentials are real. Nevertheless, here you a I'm a molecular
systematist, working on bird phylogeny. I have a Ph.D. in evolutionary
biology from the University of Chicago. I took paleo courses from Jim
Hopson, Dave Raup, and Dave Jablonski. More important, I follow the
paleontological literature on the Cambrian explosion and on the
phylogeny of the phyla.

But my point is that it's worth nothing, so
I resist discussing the matter. What's worth something is the actual
information. I have made claims. You could verify them by reading the
primary scientific literature. There are also a few popular books, and
web sites too, but in the latter case there are also many web sites with
misinformation (like the Chien interview).

It seems he's better suited to understand the literature than you or I,
furthermore, he's actually been to the site. You like to back up
assertions with even more assertions. I hope you realize that it
isn't a very scholarly approach.

The only things I can do here are make assertions and direct you to
places where you can confirm what I said. What more can anyone do?

But I haven't seen any confirmation, you are bluffing again.

I'm talking about the various citations I have sprinkled here and there.

You will just have to decide
somehow.

Assertions and posturing don't go far with me.

I have already recommended an important scientific paper. Don't
know what else to do.

Important because it agrees with you no doubt.

You could say this about any reference I gave you. What would you take
as evidence?

Proof of macro-evolution would be a good start.

How could I possibly prove anything by posting? If you won't believe a
scientific paper, what else could I conceivably provide?

But let's try. Which of my claims do you specifically doubt?

All of the ones so far that didn't mimick Dr. Chein's interview.


Pick one or a few, specifically.

Transitions of phyla.

I ask you to read Budd & Jensen. Their take-home message is that very
few of the Cambrian fossils belong to the crown groups of their
respective phyla or classes; that is, they lack some of the characters
uniting all living members of their groups, and are in fact
transitional. They also mention several fossils that appear to be
transitional between phyla, including Yunnanozoon. Gill slits may be a
primitve deuterostome characteristic.

In addition, we have recently been able to discern the relationships
among modern phyla using DNA sequences. Given these relationships, there
must be transitions.

I'll try to
back them up. But that may require citing more literature, and unless
you actually go look up the papers, you will have to take my word.

I thought you didn't like arguments by authority?

If you think I'm lying about the references I cite, you are free to look
them up. Argument from authority is a bit different from my claim that I
am not lying about things I have read, and you haven't.

Anyone can say go read this or that book and declare the high ground.
No sale.

What else can I do? How else can I back up my claims than by citing a
reference?

As for books, Simon Conway Morris' book The Crucible of Creation is
pretty good, and corrects many of the errors of Wonderful Life (not to
pick on Gould, but science advances).

Unfortunantly Gould doesn't seem to be evolving.


That's death for you.

I meant his theory, not his untimely demise.

I don't like his theory either.
Also, Andy Knoll's book Life on a
Young Planet gives you a quick rundown on that and much more. This is a
good scientific review of the general chronology that might help:
Valentine, J. W., D. Jablonski, and D. H. Erwin. 1999. Fossils,
molecules, and embryos: New perspectives on the Cambrian explosion.
Development 126:851-859.

Thanks, I'd like to recommend this for a start to see an alternative perspective:
http://www.origins.org/menus/book.html


The site doesn't seem to be in working condition right now. Perhaps later.



"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is
infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists -- whether
through design or stupidity, I do not know-- as admitting that the
fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are
generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between
larger groups."

- Gould, Stephen Jay 1983. "Evolution as Fact and Theory" in Hens
Teeth and Horse's Toes: Further Reflections in Natural History. New
York: W. W. Norton & Co., p. 258-260.



Well, if it was really that simple he wouldn't need "punctuated equilibrium"
would he? Clearly the record is a stumbling block with myriads of
theories so he seems to be downplaying the objection quite a bit.
1983 was a while ago, are they any closer to an answer?

The point is actually that you don't even know the question.

We go from wild sweeping allegations to outright insults. That didn't
take long now did it? You also avoided my question, are we any closer
to an answer?

Not an insult, but an observation. An answer to what, exactly?

hint - You quoted Gould on why he proposed PE. That was
quite awhile ago, did he prove it yet?

That's a complicated question, since PE is a complicated theory. I would
say that he hasn't (and of course is not likely to in the future, being
dead and all). We can take apart PE into several parts: 1) stasis, 2)
morphological punctuation, 3) coincidence of 2 with speciation, 4)
Gould's proposed mechanism, essentially Mayr's peripatric speciation
theory. Of these, 1 is easiest to show, but I don't think it has yet
been adequately demonstrated as a widespread phenomenon. 2 is a bit
harder, requiring very good stratigraphic and geographic controls. It
may have been demonstrated in some species, mostly forams. 3 is, I
think, impossible from the fossil record, simply because we can only try
to recognize species based on morphological change, and the assertion
then becomes circular. And the genetics on 4 are not looking good.

I see. So PE hasn't been proved.

Yes, for two reasons. First, some of its claims are hard to test.
Second, I think it's just wrong.

PE has a
problem, in that it's really impossible to test it using the fossil
record.

How do you propose we test it?

I'm not sure it can be tested except by looking at the process of
speciation happening right now.

Wait a minute there. Micro-evolution isn't even in dispute. Your scientific
approach is an assertion. Micro doesn't prove macro.

I'm not clear what you mean by micro or macro. I sense you are using
them in ways that are different from what biologists mean.

I believe they do know what is meant by the terms. How could
they not be? Unless they are totally unfamilia with any dissenting
view to Darwinian theory.

Creationists commonly use macroevolution to mean "any evolution I don't
believe". Is that what you're talking about? What dissenting views,
exactly, are you referring to?

At any rate,
macroevolution by any definition doesn't depend on PE, or even on
fossils. The best evidence for macroevolution is the nested hierarchy of
living species, especially the DNA sequence evidence.

Yep. It's an assertion based on a belief.

It's a conclusion based on analysis of data. Have you ever looked at any
of the data or read any of the literature on the subject?

But I hope at least you will retract your claim about what Gould
said.

What for? You should explain first why his theory is reasonable.
ID gets flak because it isn't testable so why doesn't Gould, or anyone
else, need to meet the same challenge?

I don't think his theory is reasonable. Gould does indeed need to meet
the testability challenge. All that has nothing to do with your
misinterpretation of what he was claiming.

Or your assertion that I misinterpreted it.

You read the quote from Gould in which he specifically says that
creationists misinterpreted him in exactly the way you do here, right?
Your choices are to admit this, or to claim that Gould never said it and
I made up the quote.

Backing up an assertion with another assertion is poor form.

That's your assertion.

For more on that, go he
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quot....html#quote3.2

A good rebuttal site created to balance their view is:
http://www.trueorigin.org/

I don't find it very good. Perhaps you are too credulous.

More assertions.

Merely reporting my experience with that site.

Merely reporting another assertion.

Give me an argument from the site that you like. We'll look at it together.

The argument depends on you but here's a goood point they mention:

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp
“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the
Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several)
which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of
circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [
Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass,
Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

That's an assertion, not an argument. I will assert in turn that Ronald
R. West (evolutionist) is wrong. But the assertion is too vague to
respond to. What does West mean? Of course, all we have is this single
quote, and I've never heard of Compass, so it seems unlikely that we
will locate the whole article.

Dr Gould was referring to the entire fossil record, Dr Chien is
referring to the Cambrian explosion and from then to now.


I have no idea what you meant by that.

Me neither. That's apparently why he dangled the post in your
group.

Now I think I know. Chien was apparently claiming that Gould called the
Cambrian explosion "the trade secret of paleontology" when in fact Gould
was referring to the apparent general stasis within species.

Well, no, it was a more general comment from Gould than that, he
said:
http://www.earthhistory.co.uk/propos...-trade-secret/
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as
the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our
textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest
is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
S. J. Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, p 179 (1980)

Dr. Chien sited his source as being from Johnson's book so I suppose
it remains to be seen how accurate Johnson was. It seems Gould has
made that comment throughout the years, perhaps in different contexts.
However, it's a small point and I doubt that's why your group was recruited.

To set you, Chien, and Johnson straight on what Gould was actually
talking about? I don't know what could be clearer than quoting Gould
directly explaining what he was actually talking about, but apparently
that's not enough.

Not enough to support your claim about Chein. I don't know in what
context he saw Gould's quote, he used the term "trade secret throughout
the years.

Always in the same context. You are reaching here. If you won't take
Gould's word on what he meant, how can you take Chien's word on what
Johnson's said Gould meant?

Why do you assume Chein is lying? What would he have to
gain, it's what he understood from the book.

I don't assume he's lying. I conclude he's wrong, and charitably
attribute that to confusion and ignorance, not lying. Of course you
could show Chien (note spelling) to be right by giving me a "trade
secret" quote from Gould that clearly does fit the context Chien
assumes. I will tell you right now that there is no such quote, but go
ahead.

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp#fossils
“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ...
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent
with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during
their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same
as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and direction less.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by
the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed.’”
[S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

What point are you trying to make by quoting this? Gould, as he himself
explained above, is talking here about fine-grained transitions between
closely related species, not about transitions between major groups.

It relates to what Dr. Chein said about the record, they are in agreement
here.

No. They are not. This is your misinterpretation, as Gould's own words
telling you that you are wrong should have made clear.

No, they agree with what Chein said. He said they were fully formed
and appeared suddenly. I don't know what part of that you don't get.


The problem here is with the ambiguity of "they". Gould is talking about
species, Chien about phyla. Species and phyla are different.

Chein characterizes his comments by talking about evolution in general.

Yes, and Chien is wrong, as Gould himself explained.

That is, he's talking about lack of evidence for exactly the sort of
transitions that creationists commonly agree do happen.

He said they look "much the same" as earlier versions. Not exactly
the same, so he is in fact saying that the record agrees with most
creationist's views, *not* disagrees. Micro-evolution is not in
dispute.

Gould is, in the quote above, talking about individual species: they
appear, do not change much during their lifetimes, and disappear. No
"earlier versions" mentioned.

There were no earlier versions, that's the point. He is saying that
they *didn't* evolve.


Gould is saying that? Are you really claiming that S. J. Gould rejected
evolution? Choose your words carefully.

He apparently did in spite of the fossil record.

Gould rejected evolution in spite of the fossil record? Try to be clear
here. You are now on record as saying that Gould said species did not
evolve, and that he did this in spite of the fossil record. Are you sure
that's what you mean?

However closely similar species are found
in the record before them, and more such species after them, generally
in a temporal pattern that clearly demonstrates transitions on that
level. Which is what Gould means when he says "Transitional forms are
generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between
larger groups." So when he says transitionals are rare, he means smooth
transitions between, for example, one species of fruit fly and another.
Just the sort of thing you call "micro-evolution" and say is not in dispute.

Is micro-evolution in dispute? anyway you added greatly to his words,
they can speak for themselves.

Apparently they can't, since you refuse to believe that he meant what he
said.

It's the implication of what he said. He sounds too much like an
appologist trying to make facts fit a belief.

Meaning what? That you believe your interpretation of what he said over
his own interpretation? That you believe your interpretation of what he
said is a true statement of the fossil record despite Gould being
unreliable in other matters? One problem with the argument from
authority is that you can tie yourself up in knots like this.

As he says way
above, the evidence for the sort of transitions that creationists think
don't happen is plentiful enough.

Yes, he said that too but Dr. Chein doesn't see any. Seems like
if it was a fact it wouldn't be debatable.

It's Chien. And it's not really debatable, unless you come into it with
a full set of creationist preconceptions, as Chien does.

There's more assertions, you've got a million of them.

"Even before I became a Christian, I had doubts about evolution."

If you will read his bio, he was influenced by conservative Christians
from an early age, long before he became a biologist. His formal
conversion may have come later, but his doubts and his religious beliefs
went hand in hand.

Where does it say that? Do you know many Christians believe
in the whole evolutionary process, outside of a created start.
Aren't you speculating a bit?

Perhaps. But you were quote-mining. Here's one for you. "It began in
high school; my parents sent me to a Christian school in Hong Kongonly
because the school has a very good educational reputation. After six
years of studying the Bible, I finally accepted the Lord just before
graduating from high school."

Many Christians do indeed believe in the whole evolutionary process.
Not, however, the ones that Chien seems to be hanging out with.

Scientists who
actually work on this do see transitional forms. Again, check out the
Budd & Jensen paper I cited earlier.


More and more assertions. I read an interview of a biologist that actually
wrote at least one book on evolution and now discounts it entirely. I
think you may be projecting some of your bias onto a chosen group.

What biologist? What book? And what can I possibly do to turn my
assertions into evidence that I haven't done already?

Citing a book is evidence? I can list a few too.

What would you prefer me to do as evidence?

I'll try to
find the biologist, it was a story on how he was head of
the department until he could no longer accept Darwinian
evolution. He worked the lab at the time of the interview.

Let me know if you find him.

Also you may be interested in a growing list of scientists that are
seriously questioning Darwinian Evolution.
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:I...ient=firefox-a

This list is bogus.

Oh my.




Many of the signers had no idea it would be used to
support creationism. It was a bait-and-switch that relied on the
ambiguity of "Darwinian evolution" to attract customers. But if you like
lists, try Project Steve:

Well, there's one guy who says he was later embarrassed to get involved,
although the Discovery site is available and makes no bones about
it's intent. He doesn't really say that his view on Darwinian Evolution changed
though, just that he's troubled on how it's used.

Precisely. Have you read the actual statement? *I* could have signed it,
as could most evolutionary biologists. It's not denying that evolution
happens, it's not denying that natural selection is important (merely
saying that it's not the only mechanism of evolution, which is clearly
true), and it calls for careful examination of data, which is what
scientists are always supposed to do. It's entirely innocuous. This has
nothing to do with the way in which the DI is trying to use it.

Nice try. But it actually said:

"...skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural
selection to account for the complexity of life"

That pretty much sums up Darwinian Evolution. The dissent isn't limited to
natural selection.

I still would sign. There are other *known* evolutionary mechanisms
besides random mutation and natural selection.

So you think they were hoodwinked and didn't think anything odd
about signing a protest petition against Darwinian theory? Do you
suppose they thought they were signing up for a door prize?

It's not a protest petition. The statement itself is pretty simple and
innocuous. One signer at least agrees that he was indeed hoodwinked.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/new..._9_16_2005.asp

And...? Mine's bigger than yours? That means we discount
those who disagree with the majority, no matter what their
creditials are?

Nope. You brought up the list as if it proved something.

It does. If you were honest you would admit it. It refutes your theory
that scientists that study Darwinian evolution agree with it.


Didn't say anything about Darwinian evolution, actually. I said
"Scientists who actually work on this do see transitional forms". And by
"this" I meant Cambrian paleontology. How many of the signers of that
document do you imagine don't believe there are transitional forms? How
would you know?

Because it would make no sense for them to sign the list. Darwinian
evolution is based heavily on transitional forms.

You will note that the statement itself says nothing about Darwinian
evolution, just "mutation and natural selection". And most varieties of
non-Darwinian evolution also require transitional forms. You are
confused in exactly the way the Discovery Institute wants you to be
confused, so it would be hard to blame you. But you really can't infer
anything about the signers except that they agree with the statement
they signed. And as I have said, I agree with it too.

I'm merely
countering with a list of my own. If your list proves anything, my list
disproves it a lot louder. If my list proves nothing, so does yours. You
pick.

Wrong. The question had nothing to who had the bigger numbers.
Maybe you need to re-read the post.

Maybe you need to make clear what you are claiming this list shows, and
how it has anything to do with the existence, or lack thereof, of
transitional fossils in the Cambrian.

It was part of the conversation that you started participating in.

Non-responsive. You used it in a specific way, above. You have to
justify that use.

You do make alot of statements by assertion,
guilt by association or innuendo. Maybe the signers are sick of it
and want a little more perspective and scientific objectivity?

Assertion, yes. But I've given you the tools to check my assertions.

Yes, more assertions. I've given you tools to get a balanced education.

Scientific papers are just assertions? Well, I suppose they are. We do
have to trust to some degree that the people who write these things
aren't actually lying,

They aren't lying if they believe it. You can't believe that there
is no bias at all in the scientific community.

There isn't in the way you think. Are you going to start going on about
vast conspiracies to hide the truth?

unless we duplicate all their research ourselves.
But in what way are your citations any less assertions than mine? At
least mine were to the primary literature. Your guys, at most, are
merely secondary sources.

How would I go about getting beyond assertions? What form would that take?

Follow my example. Post a link with the relevent info. (without trying
to bury folks with it)

I have posted several links, but not everything is on the web. Have you
ever been to a library? Is there a university library near you?

Guilt by association? Innuendo? No idea what you're talking about.

Right.

Really.

Really.

Speculating about the signers, beyond reading what they signed, is
pointless.

How so when they are credible scientists that question your Darwinian
dogma?

Like I said, there's nothing in that statement I wouldn't agree with.

You are skeptical of random mutation and natural selection to
account for the complexity of life? That's good but what else
would you suppose it could be?

For starters, there's neutral evolution, group selection,
self-organization, species selection, mass extinctions, ecological
interactions, and the processes underlying development.

And like I said, the actual statement says nothing I disagree
with. Maybe you should try reading it yourself.

I did, that's why I posted it. Take the blinders off, dude.

What am I missing here?

I think the skeptical part.

Go on.

Well, this is a disappointment. I started off talking about actual
fossils, real facts, and end up in pointless, circular arguments about
what assertions are, and whether Gould meant what he said or something
else. Now what?

Chein wasn't talking about actual fossils? And Gould's comments
do have implications that he may not have intended but I don't
think he could get around his bias.

Can you at least learn to spell the guy's name?

If you really want to do this some more, talk.origins is a more
appropriate newsgroup for your purposes than rec.woodworking or
sci.bio.paleontology. Why not post there? Don't worry, I'll find you.

"Duane Bozarth"
Fletis Humplebacker wrote:

"Duane Bozarth"
...
It isn't a negative. The theory is mutations into other
species but the fossil record doesn't confirm it.

It doesn't refute it, either. It is quite likely simply incomplete.


It's quite likely designed.


And you're eliminating the rational conclusion simply because you want
to postulate that what isn't yet known can't be.

I thought you were the one eliminating the rational conclusion.

I think the postulation of something outside the world continuing to be
involved is the irrational viewpoint.


I didn't say that so that's an irrational response.


But there has been several excellent sites found very far apart, we don't
need to excavate the earth.

What is there in what we haven't explored? We have absolutely no idea
but undoubtedly there are things we haven't found...

Yes, no doubt.

So you want to assert that because we haven't found it we don't need to
look as it can't be there. That makes sense.

When did I say that?

Previous post--" ...we don't need to excavate the earth."


In your response that the whole earth be excavated. Try a little honesty.


So we have already found everything that possibly could be if extant
somewhere else? I don't think that's a conclusion which can be drawn at
all.



Spin spin spin, don't you get dizzy?



The primary difference is that when (and if) there is an irrefutable
impasse in the direction science takes, it will be modified to account
for such new evidence. ID'ers, otoh, have already decreed they know the
answer.


Evolutionists haven't?


Nope..that's what they're looking for.


Yes, confirmation to what they believe.


They're not the ones saying
"someone else did it", they're the ones looking for ways that are
logically consistent w/ what can be observed and discerned from what we
know about how biology works...


Meaning that there's no evidence to support Darwinian assertions.


And, as I've noted far earlier, if and when it turns out there is
evidence for another viewpoint that does a better job and is more useful
for future prediction, that viewpoint will come to predominate. I don't
see that as an option for the ID'ers.


I'm sure they'll pack their bags as soon as they read your viewpoint.

"John Harshman"


If you really want to do this some more, talk.origins is a more
appropriate newsgroup for your purposes than rec.woodworking or
sci.bio.paleontology. Why not post there? Don't worry, I'll find you.

You have much more free time on your hands than I do, I don't
even have time to read your post. You need a retired guy to
talk to.

And I looked at that group a while back and concluded that
it looked too much like alt.atheism for me. I have better things
to do with my time than argue with hostile immatures looking
for group hugs.