Define 'species'

[Aron-Ra]

Like the Greenleaf peice the credibility of the New Teatament wittness was the primary issue.

The New Testament isn't even a tertiary issue! Its entirely irrelevant to our topic. We're arguing the most dubious of the Old Testament books here. And even if Greenleaf was right, and the writings attributed to the apostles were a reliable witness to actual events, that still couldn't be used to salvage the fables in Genesis. Whether the stories about Jesus are literally true or not, the stories in Genesis still aren't, and theres just no question about that.

Far be it from us too deny, that we know what we have learned by the testimony of others: otherwise we know not that there is an ocean; we know not that the lands and cities exist which most copious report commends to us; we know not that those men were, and their works, which we have learned by reading history; we know not the news that is daily brought us from this quarter or that, and confirmed by consistent and conspiring evidence; lastly we know not at what place or from whom we have been born: since in all these things we have believed the testimony of others. And if it is most absurd to say this, then we must confess, that not only our own senses, but those of other persons also, have added very much indeed to our knowledge.

St. Augustine, On the Trinity, book 15, chap. 12
The Historicity of the Gospels

Other countries, historic events, and things of this nature can at least be verified, where nothing about creationism can be. This is a huge problem from my perspective, since no one can verify anything they claim about what God is, wants, does, did, or will do. Yet any boob with a podium can make up whatever he wants about that and assert his baseless speculations as if they were absolute truth, without any reasonable expectation of inquiry or of having to explain or defend those conclusions. Religious assumptions are asserted without merit and presented as fact to be believed without reason and without question. In some of these bigger churches, I see 50,000 utterly thoughtless, mouth-breathing, head-bobbing sycophants talking to themselves with their eyes closed, and accepting every stupid lie they're told from the pulpit without any interest at all in determining whether any of it is even true, or how accurate any of it is. And this is true of every church, mosque, synagogue, temple, or circle. No one really know if God even exists, yet they all boldly claim to "know" he does. Many of these people also claim that he speaks to them directly in an audible voice, sometimes as Jesus, sometimes as Krsna, etc. I have a good friend who worships Bast because she appeared before him in the flesh and beckoned him to follow her. This is one of the guys you would claim was a reliable witness. That's why the law considers eyewitness testimony to be the least reliable form of evidence, and is often inadmissable as evidence at all for the very reasons you say it should be trusted.

Agustine like the Puritans who would come later had a vision of the chruch as a city on the hill. He was never rejecting a literal history but in not taking the Scriptures to heart. The church has never seperated the events of redemptive history from its authority. What had to be emphasised was the way it convicts a person on a very personal level, this isn't cold academics but a living wittness.

What you call "living", I call "dead for thousands of years". And what you call a "witness", the courts would call "hearsay". And while you say Augustine never rejected the Bible as a literal history, there are Biblical scholars who say he definitely did:

"Augustine was the type of pastor and theologian who knew scientists. He read them. He read the Latin translations of the best Greek philosophers and astronomers and he knew all this stuff. And after reading Genesis and thinking about it he came up with the conclusion that the story in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 was not a simple historical sequence of events. It just couldn't be. It's not what the words meant. It just wasn't. He wrote three whole books on it.
...You've got Jewish writers in the Middle Ages who wrote books on Genesis and they didn't read Augustine but they came away with the same conclusion: that the six days of Creation could not be six literal days. No way. That's not what the Hebrew says."
--Rev. Robert Bakker; Bones, Bibles, and Creation

You probably ignored this when I showed it to you before. But you really should read this whole article. Its just a few paragraphs, but they're meaningful ones, and all immediately relevant here.

With some 30,000 extant copies of the originals that do not deviate from one another in any signifigant way I would say you are presuming a great deal here.

And I would say that having some 90 different versions, then maybe I'm not. But what exactly do you mean by "the originals"? The only "originals" I know of are the 22,000 tablets of pre-Biblical pagan parallels in Ashurburnipal's library.

We have copies that go all the way back to the first century and if you compare that to any other historical writting from antiquity you will find that the authographs are seperated from the originals by centuries and the copies never look identical. You simply don't have anything like that with the New Testament, the copies from all periods are virtually identical.

I wouldn't argue that. Everything in the Old Testament was written in different countries by people of different religions over a span of about a dozen centuries. By contrast, the New Testament, -being more recent and written over a shorter period- is of course much more uniform, having only been written over the course of two or three hundred years by people who's beliefs generally agreed. Of course that still doesn't explain the apocrypha or the Nag Hammadi library, does it?

 

[Aron-Ra]

The Rules of Law he used are listed in the essay:

1. Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forger, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise.

2. In matters of public and general interest, all persons must be presumed to be conversant, on the principle that individuals are presumed to be conversant with their own affairs.

3. In trials of fact, by oral testimony, the proper inquiry is not whether is it possible that the testimony may be false, but whether there is sufficient probability that it is true.

4. A proposition of fact is proved, when its truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence.

5. In the absence of circumstances which generate suspicion, every witness is to be presumed credible, until the contrary is shown; the burden of impeaching his credibility lying on the objector.

6. The credit due to the testimony of witnesses depends upon, firstly, their honesty; secondly, their ability; thirdly, their number and the consistency of their testimony; fourthly, the conformity of their testimony with experience; and fifthly, the coincidence of their testimony with collateral circumstances.

The law may have been that way a century-and-a-half ago. But science has never been like that. And what about cases like this, where the circumstances definitely do generate suspicion? I (and many others) don't believe there is sufficient evidence that any of it is literally true. That goes quintuple^10 for the stories in Genesis, and most theologians agree with me on that. As Christianity and the Bible are both still exclusively faith-based, then obviously there has never been any competetant or satisfactory anything to defend the Genesis legends, largely because the events described are impossible, refuted by every relevant field of study, and not supported by anything but the highly-questionable bible itself.

He had set out to prove the New Testament was a myth, when he had finished his investigation he was a Christian.

What investigation? His method of determination, (by your own admission here) was not to seriously question the document in the first place. But then according to these "rules of law", all the other religious tomes must be considered true too, right? How does one compare the Tao te Ching to the Popul Vuh, if one must assume them both to be true at the same time? Or does that only apply to eyewitness accounts like the Qur'an, the Shaster, the Zend Avesta, and the Book of Mormon?

Greenleaf knew almost nothing of archaeology, and didn't know anything at all about evolution, genetics, paleontology, geology, comparative mythologies, or anything else we've learned in the last 150 years. So he didn't have any evidence to consider, and he prohibited himself from questioning the one thing he did have. Still, even after this much "investigation", he still became a Christian. That is unusual. I guess this one guy must be the only example you can find of that ever happening! Usually it happens the other way around; Someone seeking to defend creationism discovers what a sham it really is and is forced to discard a cherished belief. I know a few people who've managed to maintain their faith in Jesus after seeing creationist propaganda under the harsh light of reason and reality. But that realization often deprives them of all their faith in one blow, especially if they were once really hard-core believers as you are now.

For example, take a look at the testimony of Jon Scott, a former creation advocate and founder of Talk.Science. Since I had to read your article, you should definitely read this one, seriously. And really, you should read some of the other testimonies that I linked for you before. None of them are as long as the Greenleaf peice, and they're all much more intriguing. I've talked with some of these people myself. Some of them, like Wendy "Rubystars" Wendel are still Christian and so will probably be able to better sync with you better than I can. All of them agree that evolutionary science will not likely ever be a threat to their religion. But that Biblical literalist creationism could bring Christianity to its knees, and has already caused a widening rift in that belief between Bibliolaters and people of less dogmatic faith. And they all agree that creationists like yourself are the most effective tools against theism any militant atheist could ever use. Do yourself a favor and read the few short words these former creationists have to say before you go ranting off again about how I would have to be mentally ill to believe as I do.

Darwin on the other hand did not offer a great deal of proof, although he had a gift for acute observations and a very readable style of writting.

In fact, Darwin is credited in each of my science textbooks as offering a great deal of proof, so much in fact that he was able to convince the scientific community of his day, even though his a completely revolutionary idea. Much of Chapter 4 of my text on historical geology paraphrases what he wrote in Origin of the Species, and lists several of the same points of evidence that he did. And my cellular biology professor, the Christian geneticist, included in her lectures some of the principles he proposed to explain the process, all of which are now known to be accurate.

Darwin's philosophy began with primordial history and he proposed the tree of life diagram based on random variations and universal common ancestory.

You dwell a lot on philosophy, and I don't really know what you're on about here. But I think what you're objecting to is the philosophy of science in general, and not just evolution or common ancestry.

Look at it this way, is there going to be more evidence for what happened 2 thousand years ago or two million?

That depends on the magnitude of the event. But all things being equal, there should be much more evidence of things happening thousands of years ago rather than millions years ago. So why is there so much more evidence of bipedal Australopithecines and their tool-making than there is for Jesus and his miracles? And why is there such an astounding plethora of evidence for other geologic ages so many millions of years ago, but absolutely none in support any global flood, hours of global darkness, the sun stopping in the sky, or virtually anything else in the Bible?

I would ask you to understand that you can't seperate the Bible's accounts of redemptive history from it's moral influence.

I should warn you here that we are discussing science, not religion, and you would do well to never mention the Bible's moral influence to me again. Believe me, you don't want me to go off about that, and this isn't the right forum for it anyway.

Look at the context that Dobzhansky and Mayr studied their perspective sciences in. Dobzhansky was in Germany as the politics of national socialism were about to plunge the world into another World War. Mayr went to Harvard when the Liberal Revolution had collapsed in Europe. Keep in mind that this is a concern for me and not a major issue, I would like to see the 'War of nature' as Huxley recieve less attention and the mutual cooperation in nature to be more stongly emphasised. I have dwelled on this a great deal and you seem to think it is an attack on natural science.

As far as I can tell, its not even related to natural science. What do the socio-political environments have to do with anything we're talking about? Whether Dobzhansky was a commie or not, we're still apes. And by your own admission, our species has evolved whether Mayr was a liberal or not. Why can't you focus on the actual topic, please?

I am a soilder and I while I make every effort to prepare for war, I never believed that there was anything natural about it.

I really don't know what you're talking about. And I think that makes two of us. Liberalism, commies, nazis, socialists, morality and war aren't even related to the current topic.

Dr. Glenn Morton was a Young Earth Creationist like yourself, trained and degreed by Henry Morris himself. But when he got into the field professionally, he discovered what all natural scientists who actually practice science inevitably find; that Young Earth Creationism and flood geology and hydroplates and all that nonsense just aren't supported by anything in the real world.

How well I know this and I would be lest then honest if I said that this is a small problem for me. To be completly honest absolute dating losses me, I have yet to figure out how the geologic clock is set back to zero.

The decay of a radioactive isotope into its daughter product is a form of atomic clock because the decay is so constant. Thus it is possible to date rocks by quantifying the remaining percentage of the parent isotope. Divide the daughter by the parent percentage, run that sum on the conversion chart, and multiply it by the half-life. For example, Carbon14 will become a Nitrogen isotope in 5,730 years, while Potassium40 will become Argon40 in 1,310 Ma, and Uranium238 will become Lead206 in 4,498 Ma.

We can tell for absolutely certain that the Earth is indeed many millions of years old, I promise you. Even Lord Kelvin, who conceived the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics used that to argue for a "young" Earth, and concluded that the Earth was at least 20 million years old. The later discovery that elemenal radiation continued to heat the core, destroyed Kelvin's geothermal argument, and pushed the age of the Earth back by another order of magnitude.

I am a little tired of the personal remarks, I'll get to the questions at my first opportunity.

At last. I too am tired of being told that I must be a mentally ill believer in pagan mythos.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I still have to address your answers, and as I can't do much on this site anymore, I won't be able to post a reply to those until Sunday.

 

[mark kennedy]

To understand taxonomy, you have to understand the concept of groups within groups. Diamonds are one kind of rock just as Cadillacs are one kind of car and men are one kind of ape.

I don't really understand why you keep trying to explain this to me. Taxonomics would not be used at this level anymore then you would in organizing a small group of employees in a buisness. It is corporations that have thousands of people that you need the formal systematics.

You call me names, ("liar" in this case) while accusing me of calling you names. But the only name I've called you is hypocrite, and what you're doing is hypocrisy. I however am not lying.

Let me see if I follow this:

I specifically call you a liar. I in turn accuse you of calling me names. You insist that you have only called me a hypocite because that is what I am doing. On the other hand you are not lying...what???

I'm trying to avoid reducing this to mere semantics like you seem to want me to. These questions would still be yes or no answers regardless what the group was called or whether it was a sub-family, infraorder, superclass, or whatever. Those titles didn't matter to our conversation.

No they semantics don't matter if you're words are in a state of flux and nothing is defined or determined. Unfortunatly that is not science, it's a labyrinth of taxonomic verbage. Taxonomy is not a demonstrative science and it is certainly not empirical any more then the way you format you're posts is the truth. The truth is in the meaning and if you make you're central term 'undiscoverable' it renders you're other terms meaningless since they piviot on the fulcrum concept, species.

So would I. But you refuse to concede points clearly lost, and you've refused to pursue the lines of inquiry that would have boiled this down.

What points clearly lost? Do you mean points like the one I made about the mutations being harmfull, of no effect at all, or repaired in successive generations.

But it can't. Nothing in religion can be said to be systematic, and there is no "experiencial knowledge". Every religion claims to have experienced their gods and what not, but its all subjective, and every other group claims the others are deceived. Knowledge, as stated before, is demonstrable. But there's nothing about religion that is. Its all subjective, and can't be based on either experience or knowledge since both would stand counter to faith. If objective experience or knowledge were involved, you wouldn't need faith. In order to be science, you couldn't emply faith, because all of your "experiencial knowledge" would have to be testible in critical analysis and peer review, which nothing in religion ever is. It is not science and is nothing like science.

The Bible has been the tested, critically peer reviewed, and the accumlated 'experiencial knowledge' of credible, reliable and competant individules who wittnessed the power of God first hand. The Renaissance, the Reformation, and the representative republic we live in are all based on thourghly religious concepts. Religion is systematic, in fact it was religion that originally organized the rational systematics that natural science uses. Theology is a science, allways has been, and allways will be, just not an exclusivly naturalistic one.

How do you explain the conflict with your statemtent here, and PubMed's position that nearly everyone is born with more than 100 mutations?

A mutation happens once in 10,000 to 100,000 replications and are most often of no effect at all and most of them are repaired or have a selective disadvantage. They are distinctly different from variations of the existing gene pool and account for diversity without the need for a unicellular common ancestor. Trying to fit our data into the universal common ancestor model is holding science back. You are interested in cutting edge science, check this out:

"After extensive analyses, astonishing to him, he solved the problem of the origin of first living cell on earth-that it was not the bacterium like cell that was the very first life on earth but the eukaryotic cells with nucleus and other paraphernalia and all of their complexity. This finding showed that the branching model of evolution was not necessary to explain the diversity of living forms on earth, and, in fact, that it was basically incorrect. He could show that the same mechanisms that lead to the genome of one eukaryotic cell could lead to the genomes of zygotic cells of many different multicellular organisms. He formulated a new model for explaining the multiple and simultaneous origins of diverse and unique organisms on earth from a given primordial pond-the model of parallel origin of genomes from a common pool of genes. It took him many more years to complete the research and publish all his findings in a book titled Independent Birth of Organisms in 1994 (Genome Press)."

Genome.com

The branching model of evolution was not necessary...multiple and simultaneous origins of diverse and unique organisms...parallel origin of genomes.

A mutation is defined as a change in DNA, an acquired trait that can be inherited by subsequent generations but which the parent did not aquire by inheritence or by the cross-coding of either of its parents. Each of the examples I gave you have been declared by medical professionals to definitely be the result of mutation.

Then give me one benificial mutation that has given rise to an alltogether new species.

No. I shouldn't have to repeat things for you so often. But I did already tell you that I don't read Mayr.

Ok, he was just the most accomplished evolutionary thinker in the last century, why would you want to read him?

What do you mean, "there I go again?". I gave you an honest answer. The only way I could have answered that question without offending you would have been to lie to you. So I told you the truth, and pointed out that I wasn't saying it to insult you. If the shoe was on the other foot, I would be upset, but I would still appreciate an honest reply.

I was refering to one of you're many personal statements. I am not calling you a liar and I really don't know where you get that. Personal statements don't bother me, they just bore me to tears.

How does evolution differ from change?

Not all changes in gene frequencies are evolutionary. Just as most microevolution and mutations don't give the organism a selective advantage.

It represents the only credible explanation because it is the only one with any demonstrable reason to back it up. Remember, faith is defined as a stoic conviction that is based on neither physical evidence nor logical proof.
But the definition of species that I have already provided is relevant here, and is definitey not a nebulous concept. Macroevolution is rarely observed, but it has been observed, directly and reliably, repeatedly.

I have never had a problem with the modern definition of species, it's the mystical one in Darwinian evolution that I think is nonsense. Religion is based on logical proof, just not inductive logic. I tried to explain the difference between subjective and objective, inductive and deductive, materialistic and rationalistic reasoning. Faith is not the absense of knowlege but the ultimate result of unwavering confidence, like you're convictions about the universal common ancestor, you have to walk by faith not by sight.

A random variation is a mutation. But how do you have a random variation that doesn't change the genetic code? [/qutoe]

A mutation is the result of a damaged DNA stand, a variation of the genetic material in random fashion are inherited traits. I really don't know why you think the DNA has to be changed.

I rather doubt that you have read anything that wasn't filtered through some creationist propaganda mill. What are you referring to here?

We discussed peer reviewed publications at length in the formal debate. I don't get most of what I believe about creationism from creationists, or the Bible for that matter, I get it from evolutionists.

You made me read several pages written by a lawyer, and I didn't expect me to be bored by that? My criticism of Greenleaf's extremely limited available evidence is valid, as is my continuing inquiry as to why you think anything in the new testament is remotely relevant to Homo erectus or other evolutionary origins.

The Dane leading founder of the Harvard School of Law, the leading expert of the rules of evidence of his time and the author of a treatise of legal evidence used in every US court in the United States for half a century...just a lawyer... ...I just don't get it. The operative word is evidence and you wanted to know how I came to believe the way I do. The testimony of a wittness is evidence, it even carries more weight then foresics to this day.

The rest is largely a matter of opinion and conjecture and I really don't have the time for it right now. I'll get to the other posts as soon as I can.

 

[Aron-Ra]

To understand taxonomy, you have to understand the concept of groups within groups. Diamonds are one kind of rock just as Cadillacs are one kind of car and men are one kind of ape.

I don't really understand why you keep trying to explain this to me. Taxonomics would not be used at this level anymore then you would in organizing a small group of employees in a buisness. It is corporations that have thousands of people that you need the formal systematics.

Here as before, you're demonstrating that you have no understanding of systematics in any capacity really, but certainly not as it applies to biology. When you blame your confusion on a "labyrinth of terminology" or "word salad" it can only indicate that you don't know what any of these words mean. Why don't you just say so politely, without calling me a liar in the process?

Let me see if I follow this:

I specifically call you a liar. I in turn accuse you of calling me names. You insist that you have only called me a hypocite because that is what I am doing. On the other hand you are not lying...what???

That's right. You're calling me names while accusing me of calling you names. This is what prompted me to call you the first and only name I remember using. Criticizing your own faults in someone else is hypocrisy. Anyone who practices hypocrisy is a hypocrite. And I am not lying no matter how often you say I am.

I'm trying to avoid reducing this to mere semantics like you seem to want me to. These questions would still be yes or no answers regardless what the group was called or whether it was a sub-family, infraorder, superclass, or whatever.

No they semantics don't matter if you're words are in a state of flux and nothing is defined or determined. Unfortunatly that is not science, it's a labyrinth of taxonomic verbage.

Now I think I'm beginning to see the problem. Your writing is really bad, so its hard to understand you. But I think your definition of semantics is opposite of the real one. It would be semantics if the exact definitions of the terms were paramount and independent of anything else. But that's not the case here because it doesn't matter what words you use to recognize these groups, because the evident relationships don't change no matter what semantics you use. I do have precise definitions for everything, but you rejected all of those definitions. That's why I had to demonstrate this to you some other way. That's when you started pretending that I hadn't defined anything, and wrote everything off as semantics again.

Taxonomy is not a demonstrative science and it is certainly not empirical any more then the way you format you're posts is the truth. The truth is in the meaning and if you make you're central term 'undiscoverable' it renders you're other terms meaningless since they piviot on the fulcrum concept, species.

Once again I must repeat that this does not pivot on any fulcrum definition, so it doesn't matter if it is "discoverable" in every case or not. The meaning of all the terms I provided were truth, so I don't know why you rejected them. I am still not a liar no matter how many times you call me that name. And taxonomy is a demonstrative science that is utterly independant of semantics.

For example, viruses are not considered to be alive because they lack metabolism. So all life on Earth is either Prokaryote or Eukaryote. There have been some revision of these terms as our understanding of them has improved. But that doesn't negate the fact that our understanding has improved, and that the current concept is indeed more accurate than any predecessor. Now, can you tell the difference between these two taxonomic domains? Or do you still think its just semantics?

Protists, (which are actually a conglomerate group) along with algae, plants, animals, and fungi are all taxonomic kingdoms within the domain, Eukarya, meaning they all have eukaryote cells. If all of the one group contains internal nuclei and organelles where none of the other group does, then is this demonstrable? Or is it just another subjective opinion? I'm interested in hearing your answer though I doubt you'll want to answer this.

The members of the animal kingdom are determined by their unique cellular structure. Whether you call them animals or metazoans, this fact does not change, so it can't be semantics. But even if it was, isn't it still demonstrably true? If it is, then it is empirical. If it is not, then it is as you say, merely a subjective opinion. Please answer this, and each of the following questions I pose to you, and I'll show you how our debate was supposed to work.

Within kingdom Animalia, there are a few different groups, sponges, comb jellies, cnidarians, etc., as well as one group called Bilateria, a group of animals with a particular type of symmetry. Is bilateral symmetry objectively determined by direct observation, and thus empirical?

Bilateral animals are divided into several different groups. One of them, Dueterostromia, is determined in embryology by the fact that the anus develops before the mouth, unlike all other bilateral animals, except perhaps for sponges. Is this objectively determined? Or mere opinion?

Dueterostromes are either echinoderms, hemichordates, or chordates, the latter being determined by the presence of a spinal chord. I remember you whined a bit about embryology earlier. But this is one of the specific applications of that. All chordates develop the same way, anus first, unlike all other animals without spinal chords. Now, is this demonstrable science? And since you've accused me of lying so many times already, where and why is any of this untrue?

There are a handful of groups within the phylum, Chordata. One of the sub-groups includes every animal in the world that has a skull. Can you objectively determine what animals have skulls? There are two groups within Craniates, one of which includes every animal in the world with spinal vertebrae. Can that be objectively determined? There are two groups within the subphylum, Vertebrata; one of them includes every animal in the world with jaws. Is the presence of jaws empirical or subjective?

Much more importantly, some animals have skulls but no jaws, but every animal with jaws has a skull. Some animals have vertebrae and no skull. But every animal with a skull has vertebrae. Not everything with a spinal chord has vertebrae, odd though that seems. But every animal with vertebrae has a spinal chord in it, just as every gnathostomate, Craniate, Vertebrate, Chordate is also a bilateral metazoan eukaryote, just as you would expect them to be if they had all evolved from a common ancestor. But this is not what you would ever expect from a common creator not bound by the laws of inheritance. So these facts imply common ancestry. But do any of these facts "presuppose" it, as you implied they did? And now that you know how each of these are determined, do you still think it is only semantics? And if so, why?

Gnathostomata is divided into a handful of subgroups, one of which include every jawed organism that also has legs, beginning of course with lobe-finned fish, and including several extinct forms as well as amphibians and amniotes. Amniota includes every animal in the world who's embryos develop within an amnion or amniotic sac. Is this empirically determined, Mark? Is any of this less than truthful?

Amniotes include three groups which are still extant, one of which may include another. Anapsids, diapsids, and synapsids are all determined by the number of temporal fenestra, openings in the skull behind the eye.

Anapsids include turtles and a whole lot of other fossil forms including shell-less turtles and turtles on the half-shell, as well as other things that aren't very turtle-like at all. Diapsids fall into two groups depending on the number of chambers in their hearts, another objectively empirical observation. On the two-chambered side are lepidosaurs, the "true" reptiles, which include loads of extinct groups as well as sphenodons (tuatara) and Squamates, (lizards and snakes). The archosaurs are the diapsids with four-chambered hearts, among other distinguishing morphologies. These include phytosaurs, pterosaurs, crocodilians, dinosaurs, and birds. The synapsid group consists of every mammal that has ever lived, as well as a number of "mammal-like reptiles"; pelycosaurs and therapsids, etc. Is any of this subjective opinion or semantics? If you still think it is, please explain.

Class mammalia includes extinct multituberculates, paleorectoids, and triconodonts, as well as the monotremes, marsupials, and eutherians which still survive. Mammals are fur-bearing (follicled) hemeothermic synapsids with mammae. Is this philosophical? Or can your status as a mammal be demonstrated scientifically?

Eutherians are a sub-group of mammals which are born live in a placenta. Is this semantics, Mark? Is any part of this not demonstrable science? Do you see any state of flux with any of the terms here? Are there any which I have not adequately defined for you? Do you need to know what the word, 'species' means in order to understand the real, objectively demonstrable scientific meaning of any of these other terms? I so, which ones? And how would discovering some other definition of species that I haven't already given you aid your understanding of these parent groups? Do you see any "rationalizing' involved with any of these? If so, where and why? Are any of these terms speculative? Are any of them "supposition" in the opinion of the observer? If so, how? Are any of these distinctions not directly tied to genetic and fossil evidence simultaneously? If so, which ones? Do any of these ignore any evidence? If so, what? Could any of it have been subjectively manipulated to fit the model? Give specifics in any case where you think it could have been, and remember to explain how this could be done. Also be sure to explain why anyone would want to do such a thing.

Now since you agree that men are primates, (Anthropoids) then you must accept that this term is scientifically demonstrable, and not just a matter of subjective opinion. So why don't you define that term for me, and tell me how to tell a primate from any other placental mammal? Are there subdivisions within this group? If so, what are they, and how could we recognize them? And would it matter if you were looking at a dead one or a live one? Do you need to know what a species is in order to know if any example animal is a primate or not? Could you still tell what one was even if you only found a skull or even just one of the back teeth? Do you need to find the whole skeleton before you can know that you're holding a piece of a once-complete primate?

 

[Aron-Ra]

What points clearly lost? Do you mean points like the one I made about the mutations being harmfull, of no effect at all, or repaired in successive generations.

The one where you said that all mutations were deleterious or harmful; Another one where you said you were still waiting for a single example of a beneficial mutation after I had already shown a half dozen of them; A follow-up comment where you claimed those examples weren't really mutations after you had already seen medical documentation confirming that each one of them was; And the other comments about how rare they are, even though hundreds of them per zygote can't exactly be rare. Pretty much everything you've said so far has been proven wrong, but you refuse to admit that in any case, no matter how solidly it is proved.

The one thing you conceded was the comment that reptiles had a three-chambered heart. But you divorced yourself from even that error by dismissing it a "careless statement". I don't believe it is possible for you to honorably concede any error, even if you yourself know you're wrong. But I have had to do that many times in my debates. And it has been to my benefit each time.

The Bible has been the tested, critically peer reviewed, and the accumlated 'experiencial knowledge' of credible, reliable and competant individules who wittnessed the power of God first hand.

The Bible has not been peer-reviewed, and couldn't be. The only predictions it has ever made which can be tested have all failed, and each of the claims which we could test, -the genetic bottlenecks from Noah/Adam, the single language at the tower of Babel, the global flood, hours of global darkness, etc.- have all been disproved. But the problem is that the excuse of inexplicable magic conjured by a deceptive god is such that the whole notion defies testing by discarding any rules that apply to anything we know about reality, and piles spells upon compounded spells that all defy even a hypothetical explanation. In other words, the Bible can't be peer-reviewed because it can't be falsified. And it can't be falsified because there is nothing you people would ever accept to indicate that any part of it was wrong.

The very basis of dogmatic faith is to refuse free inquiry, treat objectivity as a sin, (which you have done several times in this discussion) and never to admit when you're wrong. That and you must apply a double-standard where the opposition has to bare all burden of truth in every case, while you don't even have to answer for anything ever, and can just make up whatever you want and call it truth. But since you like to call me a liar, perhaps you could show me up here by showing me what journals were published baring the first -hand critical analysis of the public at-large, believers and non-believers alike. I'm curious to see how it was confirmed that anyone ever witnessed the power of God first-hand. If that had been done, and it was confirmed in critical inquiry, then why are there still non-believers and believers in other gods?

The Renaissance, the Reformation, and the representative republic we live in are all based on thourghly religious concepts.

Actually, the democracy (I know you guys hate that word) -that we live in was founded on secularism, as was the Renaissance, which was nothing more than a departure from the rule of the church. I don't know what reformation you're talking about. But since you've been dead-wrong on every point every time thus far, you're probably going to be wrong about that too.

Religion is systematic, in fact it was religion that originally organized the rational systematics that natural science uses. Theology is a science, allways has been, and allways will be, just not an exclusivly naturalistic one.

"We humans long to be connected with our origins. So we create rituals. Science is another way to express this longing. It also connects us with our origins. And it too has its rituals, and its commandments. Its only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. Whatever is inconsistent with the facts, no matter how fond of it we are, must be discarded or revised."
--Carl Sagan, COSMOS, the final episode

Religion is the antithesis of science, and is nothing like a science in any respect. How can it be falsified? What testible predictions has it ever made? What experiments can be performed to test how accurate religious beliefs are? What Theory has been proposed? Based on what observed or demonstrable facts? If all the world's Christians still can't prove that theirs is the most accurate denomination, and all the world's theists still can't prove that God even exists, and all the religions combined still can't even show the slightest evidence that anything supernatural was ever real, and none of this can even be believed without faith, then there ain't no kind of science anywhere involved with it.

How do you explain the conflict with your statemtent here, and PubMed's position that nearly everyone is born with more than 100 mutations?

A mutation happens once in 10,000 to 100,000 replications and are most often of no effect at all and most of them are repaired or have a selective disadvantage.

But how do you explain the conflict with your statemtent here, and PubMed's position that nearly everyone is born with more than 100 mutations?

They are distinctly different from variations of the existing gene pool and account for diversity without the need for a unicellular common ancestor.

Since all the geneticists and cutting-edge peer-reviewed biologists I know say the very opposite; that mutations are the variations in the gene pool, then I have to know what you know that none of my professors do. If variations in the gene pool are not mutation, then what are they?

Trying to fit our data into the universal common ancestor model is holding science back.

Trying to deny the common ancestry implied at every level of every field is holding science back, as is threatening to teach creationism and intelligent design in school.

You are interested in cutting edge science, check this out:

"After extensive analyses, astonishing to him, he solved the problem of the origin of first living cell on earth-that it was not the bacterium like cell that was the very first life on earth but the eukaryotic cells with nucleus and other paraphernalia and all of their complexity. This finding showed that the branching model of evolution was not necessary to explain the diversity of living forms on earth, and, in fact, that it was basically incorrect. He could show that the same mechanisms that lead to the genome of one eukaryotic cell could lead to the genomes of zygotic cells of many different multicellular organisms. He formulated a new model for explaining the multiple and simultaneous origins of diverse and unique organisms on earth from a given primordial pond-the model of parallel origin of genomes from a common pool of genes. It took him many more years to complete the research and publish all his findings in a book titled Independent Birth of Organisms in 1994 (Genome Press)."

Genome.com

The branching model of evolution was not necessary...multiple and simultaneous origins of diverse and unique organisms...parallel origin of genomes.

You think this is cutting edge science? If this is the best you can do, why do you keep trying?

This author is literally proposing that the first man accidentally assembled himself out of random organic molecules, and that he rose up and walked out of the primordial ooze fully-formed, along with every other living thing on Earth. He says that random inanimate chemicals can just unintentionally amass themselves into a frog, or a dog, a camel, or whatever, without any of the evolutionary processes you already said you accept, including ring species, (which we both already know is true) and without need or involvement of any god. Didn't you even think for a moment about what position that puts you in? Are you sure this is the "cutting edge science" you wanted to show to an atheist?

Dr. Periannan Senapathy is a legitimate scientist, I’ll grant you that. But he published this concept in a book, not a journal. And like creationists, this author also ignores taxonomy and everything we've ever confirmed about evolution, (especially the fact that it has been many times observed). And he is only concerned with abiogenesis, which he proposes to be happening all the time! But then he makes some very strange extrapolations based on what he has found. Don't you bother to investigate any of your own sources? Haven't you at least read any of the reviews of his conclusions by other creationists? Gert Kortoff's critique mentions nothing of the grave religious implications, and destroys Senapathy's extrapolated arguments on purely scientific grounds.

For what its worth, I don't think he has proved abiogenesis. If he had, he would be guaranteed a Nobel prize, that's for sure. And if he was right, it would dessimate both Biblical creationism and even the vaguest notions of Intelligent Design Theory. But the extrapolated assumptions he has compiled onto his core discovery are absurd to say the very least, and can't begin to compete with all the things we already know are true of evolution.

Incidentally, this same site also mentioned Elizabeth Pennisi, another legitimate scientist most frequently quoted by creationists for her peer-reviewed journal article, "Is it time to uproot the tree of life?". This is also absurd because Pennisi is a taxonomist herself, and supports evolution from common ancestry exclusively. Her work even contributed to the Tolweb site I already referred you to.

"The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial." Pennisi believes there is no root. And as I told you before, she may be right, meaning there may be as many as a half-dozen common ancestors for all life, and not the "single universal common ancestor" you kept arguing for. "The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. [Eubacteria, Eukaryotes, Archaebacteria, and viruses] We hope to provide a comprehensive discussion of these issues on this page soon. For the time being, please refer to the papers listed in the References section." ...and that's where you'll find Pennisi's article, which doesn't in any way imply anything like what the creationists all wanted it to. And you accuse me of grasping at straws?! You creationists are masters of irony.

 

[Aron-Ra]

A mutation is defined as a change in DNA, an acquired trait that can be inherited by subsequent generations but which the parent did not aquire by inheritence or by the cross-coding of either of its parents. Each of the examples I gave you have been declared by medical professionals to definitely be the result of mutation.

Then give me one benificial mutation that has given rise to an alltogether new species.

Nice attempt to change the subject. Do you now concede that each of these examples really are the result of mutation? And that these mutations were in fact passed through the subsequent population exactly the way evolution demands they should?

Now to address your question; each person has an average of over 100 mutations, and each of these examples are the result of very dramatic mutations, yet they're still part of the same species. So while you complain of the "impossible burdens of proof" that my [much more reasonable] challenges supposedly posed of you, you now demand proof that just one mutation can instantly result in an "altogether" new species. This is another example of the enormous double-standard creationists apply; All the rules must able bind their opponants but may never be applied to themselves. And while you can't even answer a simple question like "what is a monkey", you demand of me only what you think is impossible to answer. Does that seem honest?

We've already proved an incredible diversity in the morphology of dogs, but the hundreds of dog breeds we now have still count as only four genetic strains of the same species. So we can't base speciation on morphology, unless intermediate breeds are removed. In that case, Dachshunds and Akbash would have to be considered distinctly different species in that case, because they would never be able to interbreed directly if they were the only remaining breeds. This is related to the ring species concept, which you already said you accept. But the differences between these two members of the same species equates to literally millions of mutations. So that won't satisfy your challenge either.

Still, even as unfair as this challenge was intended to be, I can still answer it satisfactorily.

While you keep insisting that the fulcrum concept of "species" was never defined, I did define that for you earlier, in considerable detail, and you agreed with it, (in writing) at that time. The point of speciation we agreed on is where every member of the daughter population shares some morphological, physiological, or genetic distinction unique to that group, and either will not or can not interbreed with any member of the parent group. As I'm sure you won't accept geographic isolation alone; (I wouldn't either) and by "altogether" new species, I'm sure you mean one that can not interbreed as opposed to one who can but won't, and you insist that this speciation be the immediate result of a single mutation, then the best example I could provide are the mice of Madiera.

16th Century sailors inadvertently brought stowaway mice from Portugal, and stranded them on Madiera, a volcanic mass of steep cliffs with no indigenous mice. Eventually, the mice spread to various parts of the island, which by its structure can geographically isolate several groups of castaways at once. After 500 years in such isolation, these mice have erupted into not one, but six genetically-distinct species, each with a chromosomal variance of both count and type which leaves them incapable of interbreeding with the European stock anymore. Most of them can't even interbreed with each other. And again, geneticists confirm that the variation is the result of a single mutation per species.

There. Where you asked for just one example, I have given you six, again, just like I did with my half-dozen beneficial human mutations. Will that be good enough for you? Or will you again try to find some way to say that none of these really counts, like you did with the human "anomolies"?

I shouldn't have to repeat things for you so often. But I did already tell you that I don't read Mayr.

Ok, he was just the most accomplished evolutionary thinker in the last century, why would you want to read him?

As I told you before, I study evolution, (and everything else) directly, referring to the evidence itself. I'm iconoclast. I neither need nor want any authority opinion on anything. I'll form my own opinions, thank you, and I'll figure out for myself what makes the most sense. That has always worked best for me, and it has lead me to discover a number of things which the alleged authorities had missed. I have also discovered a number of those authority's mistakes, so I suggest you approach this the way I do. Its a lot harder to be deceived or mislead that way.

I was refering to one of you're many personal statements. I am not calling you a liar and I really don't know where you get that. Personal statements don't bother me, they just bore me to tears.

Me too. That's why I responded to your personal attacks, negative assumptions and associations about me, and all of your name-calling with unaffected monotony. Hopefully, we're getting passed that stage now?

I have never had a problem with the modern definition of species, it's the mystical one in Darwinian evolution that I think is nonsense.

Then what is the mystical definition? I'll expect a citation to wherever he defined it as you say, as well as an explanation from you as to how this is "mystical". I hope this isn't another totally baseless assertion like when you accused him of being a "pagan myth maker". Hopefully, you've learned since then not to make up your own definitions that can't be found in any relevant source or at least a dictionary.

Religion is based on logical proof, just not inductive logic.

Nope. Faith is defined as a:

"Firm belief in something for which there is no proof."
Merriam-Webster

"Belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof."
Encarta

"Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his authority and veracity; reliance on testimony."
Webster's Revised Dictionary

"Belief in something that has not been proved or is not capable of being proved."
Wordsmyth

"Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
Dictionary.com

I tried to explain the difference between subjective and objective, inductive and deductive, materialistic and rationalistic reasoning.

I already knew the difference before then. But you apparently don't know the definition of "proof". Its not the same as "evidence". Proof means that once you share this logic with me, I will be honorably compelled to accept it. Having already researched this more than I think you could have, I doubt very much that you can support this claim. But you're certainly welcome to try. What is your logical proof, sir?

Faith is not the absense of knowlege but the ultimate result of unwavering confidence, like you're convictions about the universal common ancestor,

But I don't have any convictions about that. As I said, I am open to a few more common ancestors, and even other options. Its just that there don't appear to be any, and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this one. All my beliefs are tentative. I've never had an "unwavering confidence" in anything, and honestly don't even know what that would be like.

you have to walk by faith not by sight.

Aah yes, I remember.

"To see by faith, one must shut the eye of reason."
--Benjamin Franklin; Poor Richard's Almanac

A random variation is a mutation. But how do you have a random variation that doesn't change the genetic code?

A mutation is the result of a damaged DNA stand, a variation of the genetic material in random fashion are inherited traits. I really don't know why you think the DNA has to be changed.

Earlier, you listed a few different types of mutation, though not all of them that are known now. And if you'll remember the demonstrations already shown to you on this board, only a few of the ones you listed could be considered "damaged".

We discussed peer reviewed publications at length in the formal debate. I don't get most of what I believe about creationism from creationists, or the Bible for that matter, I get it from evolutionists.

Really? Like what for example?

The Dane leading founder of the Harvard School of Law, the leading expert of the rules of evidence of his time and the author of a treatise of legal evidence used in every US court in the United States for half a century...just a lawyer... ...

Well, was he ever promoted beyond that to become a judge? Because your description implies he is a lawyer.

I just don't get it. The operative word is evidence and you wanted to know how I came to believe the way I do. The testimony of a wittness is evidence, it even carries more weight then foresics to this day.

No it doesn't. Forensics always wins hands down over perjury...I mean testimony. These days it is possible to be judged for a life or death sentence solely on DNA evidence regardless of any amount of eyewitness testimony. How did you not know that? The only time I am aware of where testimony ever carried the way you say it does was in Salem in the 1600s. And look how well that turned out. That's why testimony can no longer be accepted over evidence.

The rest is largely a matter of opinion and conjecture and I really don't have the time for it right now.

I read through my posts again, and found nothing in my words to fit that description. But I also noticed that your whole position was nothing but conjecture from beginning to end. You creationists are masters of irony.

I will try to address the answers you gave to my questions within the next day or so, and should have everything ready for your reply by Tuesday morning at the latest.

 

[ForeRunner]

Aron-Ra, your patience is astounding

 

[Aron-Ra]

Aron-Ra, your patience is astounding

Thank you. But its really just a morbid curiosity. Is it possible to reason with someone who's belief system requires and even praises the rejection of reason itself?

 

[Aron-Ra]

First, I am curious as to your perspective, and (more importantly) how you came to the conclusion(s) you did. Why should I believe anything about your position, whatever your exact position is?

I started with the New Testament and I was very concerned about the extraordinary nature of the miralcles. The one that recieved the most attention was the ressurection and it became my central focus. In Romans 6 there is a lengthy discussion about the power of God as it relates to walking in faith. It discribes the ressurection as being brought about by the glory of God (which would be a topic in and of itself). This same power that raised Christ from the dead was exercised at the original creation and this is a common theme throughout the OT.

Almost by accident I happened into a creation/evolution thread on an exclusivly secular board and I was amazed at how stongly the Bible was rejected as history. Now I had been interested in Christian apologetics for years and had debated the New Testament as history many times. With evolution it was far different, natural history in particular was deeply embedded with not only an antibiblical central premise, it was antitheistic.

While researching for a paper on the Scientific Revolution I discovered the shift in reasoning was from inductive to deductive and it started with Bacon, and ended with Newton. I have allways been interested in philosophy and history so when I found a philosophy of natural history in Darwin's On the Origin of Species I found the combination of the two irresistable.

So I was right. You never questioned the Bible as I did. I had to. Even as a very young boy, everything I found in the Bible violated all logic. Why there ever needed to be a resurrection in the first place didn't make any sense. God couldn't forgive us for something he did until we killed his son. What? If you incorporate the Genesis fable into this, then God cursed us for doing something good, for choosing wisdom; and won't forgive us for that until we prove we don't really have any wisdom. We earn forgiveness only by doing something really bad. God killed himself to save us from himself? What? What happened to unconditional love and forgiveness? The way the Bible portrays God, he never forgives anything without some terrible condition being met first, and its usually a stupid one.
That and the fact that no historian or astronomer anywhere on Earth could remember any hours of daytime darkness was another indication that the "witness" was unreliable to say the least. When zombies rise out of their graves and dance the Thriller in downtown Judea, you would expect someone else to mention that somewhere. Yet the gospels, (all suspisciously composed decades after the alleged fact) are the only source you'll ever find of this event. There is nothing to corroberate anything in the entirety of the Bible, Old Testament or New. And all the stories of Jesus are (as I said) almost exact copies of the earlier myths of neighboring cultures. It occurs to me that since all these other gods came first, that either Dionysus really could turn water into wine, or if he couldn't, if that was just a myth, then Jesus couldn't really do it either, and is probably just a myth too.

Then there are the many contradictions, like Judas dying two different ways, which couldn't both have been done at the same time; one where he spends his money, and one where he returned it to the pharisees and they spend the money, and both of them supposedly baught the same land with the same cash. Then there are the logical absurdities like the ability to see all the kingdoms of the Earth from a high mountain or a tree. And the fact that none of the miracles can be explained even by any hypothetical means. Why would this all-powerful being need to run and hide when someone wants to throw a rock at him? Can't the creator of "the word" communicate his point any more effectively than that? And why this system of judgement where the only attribute worthy of salvation is gullability? Good works are like filthy rags to God, and no one, not even Ghandi, could ever save themselves from Jesus' personal torture chamber unless they believe something totally preposterous for literally no reason at all, and maintain that delusion against all reason. This is not the way of any superior being, much less a supreme one. These are the claims of someone trying to use fear to gain power for himself. These are the lies of the priests, and nothing more.

But none of that has anything whatsoever to do with creationism or rejecting physical evidence. That was the question I asked, and you still haven't answered it.

Over time I have become convinced that the central tenants of evolution are philosophical, and more importantly, over extended with regards to evidence. To be honest the human origins fossils are primary for me and I have yet to see a transitional that is beyond skepticism.

Nothing should ever be beyond skepticism, and that includes the Bible.

I came to my convictions based on the New Testament wittness and have come to find evolution to be severly flawed as a philosophy of science.

You think science itself is a flawed philosophy. All Christians believe in your supposed "witness" in the New Testament. But most of them reject literal translations of the Old Testament because there's no way that can be true. I want to know why you think it is.

Also the "central tenets" of evolution are that organisms reproduce more young than can possibly survive, there is variation in all the young, and the best-adapted ones will preferentially survive and thrive well enough to pass those genes down to even more successful offspring, causing an allelic variance which leads to increased biodiversity, speciation, and many levels beyond. This is even according to your own words. Since we already know that each of these are definitely true, how do you imagine any of it to be philisophical? Things that can measured and tested this way aren't philosophies. Also, you've still never even attempted to explain what this alleged flaw is?

The first question was answered and I have elaborated on the explanation repeatedly.

Nope. Never happened, and there was no elaboration either. I'm still waiting for an answer to that one. The only answer appears to be that you just believed the first thing you were told and were never able to question that. I still don't know how someone can do that the way you evidently did.

When I was eleven or twelve years old, I too was told to believe the Bible was the "absolute truth", but I couldn't continue to believe that once I read it. I didn't get very far before I threw it across the room in disgust because the God I was lead to believe in couldn't have been involved in all that petty, shallow, sexist, racist, cruelty, stupidity and evil. This was not the word of God. These were obviously the words of base savages trying to justify their atrocities against their fellow man. And even if the gospels were true, Genesis still couldn't be for a great many reasons, the least of which being that it couldn't explain why we were apes. I want to know how you managed to read it backwards and get the opposite impression? Maybe if you had read it forward, like I did, then you would see my point?

The taxonomic questions were first answered in a yes and no fashion which was all that was asked.

Not quite. I told you, I needed the taxonomic questions as a starting point, and that follow-up discussions would have to be based on those answers. You never permitted follow-up discussions, either because you conceded the proposed relationships were in fact true already, or because you refused to correct you mislabled hominid questions in any way that could make sense.

Upon futher discussion I dismissed the taxonomic questions as speculative with regards to the origins of the human race. In accordance with the original conditions that I allow for dismissing a question, I am confident that I complied with the terms I originally agreed to.

Nope. You were supposed to present an argument to show why they were speculative. You never did that because you didn't have the slightest idea what you were talking about. I didn't realize until then just how little you knew about taxonomy. But now that I have explained it in message #425, you must certainly now realize that there's hardly any speculation involved. You were never warranted in refusing my questions, and in fact, you even admitted an agreement with me that if creationism was true of anything at all, or if evolution from common ancestry was fundamentally mistaken, that flaw had to be found in taxonomy, because if it wasn't there, it simply couldn't be anywhere else. You dodged my questions, sir.

Not true...enough said.

Yes it is true. I asked about the lineages of several other animals, and offered the human-related questions as a bonus to compare them to. The bonus questions were the only ones you answered. So I had to come back in a later post and demand that you answer the prerequisite questions so we could get started. That's also when I pointed out that none of your hominid answers were right even by your own standards. But you dodged them all again, refusing to make any corrections at all. Enough said?

There is no such thing as a dominant or recessive mutation, only dominant and recessive gene.

Which is brought about by mutation. for example, the ancient stegocephalian fish, Eliginerpeton, Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, all had too many toes on their fin/feet. Now we have only five. But the gene for six fingers in humans is still dominant, believe it or not.

What they lead to is not a transition but an inherited trait.

Which is what a transition is.

I have treated each of the mutations listed in the formal debate at length

LOL You dismissed them all at once, out-of-hand, with a single thoughtless comment, one which was wrong by the way.

and have yet to see a benificial trait as a result of any of these mutations specifically identified as an evolutionary change.

Then go back and read that post with your eyes open this time, and you will see it. Just what do you think would be required of any of these to constitute an evolutionary change?

There are very specific examples of harmfull mutations and the concerted opinion of noted scientists cited in the posts. Enough said about that as well.

Except that there are even more specific examples of beneficial mutations and the concerted opinion of noted scientists cited in these same posts. Methinks thou art in denial.

The philosophy of science that presupposes a common ancestory demands that the most simular living species have a common ancestor. In taxonomic relations the emphasis is put on the observer and is rightly called subjective. As opinions change and new evidence comes to light it is subjectivly minipulated to fit the model. Evolution is a philosophy of science based on a concept. Last chance before having to concede this point.

This was your last chance to retract that error. Because the explanation and questions I posted in message #425 solidly disprove your whole accusation here where they apply to taxonomy. But as for evolution, evolution is an objectively testable explanation of observed facts, and is therefore not philisophical.

Now, since the conclusion is unavoidable is this empirical or conceptual?

The unavoidable conclusion is that evolution is definitely empiricle.

 

[Aron-Ra]

why is it that the concept of common ancestry is universally accepted by all the most celebrated minds of the modern era, including all the collective genius of the vast majority of scientific experts in any field, and every last one of the Nobel laureates?

Because the scientific communitty will not accept an alternative to the common ancestory model.

This is your most desperate rationalization yet! The only way to really make it big in science is to challenge some long-held idea, and replace it with a better one. That's why Einstein is a household name. His theory of relativity replaced the Newtonian theory of gravity. Competitive scientists all hope to discover something that will turn the rest of the scientific community on its ear. As my genetics professor said early in the semester, "Science is all about argument", meaning that the peer-review process of rigorous testing and critical analysis are all about challenging anything anyone says, and putting all ideas to the test, just like Sagan and Hawking both said in the quotes I included in this discussion. They all want to prove each other wrong. Isn't this exactly what Dr. Senapathy is trying to do? The scientific community is completely accepting of him, except that his notions depend on ignoring a whole lot of demonstrable facts which he can't account for. Otherwise, there is no rejection of his ideas.

Don't you remember this?

"The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair isn't that his ideas were wrong, or silly, or in gross contradiction to the facts. [like Senapathy's] The worst aspect of the Velikovsky affair is that some scientists attempted to suppress these ideas. Now suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there is no place for it in science." --Carl Sagan; COSMOS episode IV

Your rationalizations are becoming increasingly desperate, and increasingly feeble. The concept of common ancestry is universally accepted by all the most celebrated minds of the modern era, including all the collective genius of the vast majority of scientific experts in every relevant field, and every last one of the Nobel laureates because it is the only concept with any evidentiary support or scientific validity. It is the only concept that has survived countless tests because it is the only one left that can be tested. And it is the only concept of our origins which explains all the facts related to it, and which doesn't have to ignore any of them. The theory of evolution explains the demonstrated mechanisms of evolution, each of which, even you have already agreed with, except for mutations, and I think you already realize you're about that. And it is the only concept of origins with any demonstrated mechanisms to discuss, that don't also require us to ignore other known mechanisms at the same time. Senapathy ignores quite a bit, but you're required to ignore a whole lot more.

To date, there has still never been a theory of special creation, nor will there ever be one. By your own admission, you can't and won't explain anything. You can't make any accurate predictions, won't permit anything to falsify your beliefs, and refuse to practice any part of the scientific method. In other words, evolution remains the only option with nothing else to choose from. And its not like we even need one since we know for sure that at least most of evolution is accurate.

In the face of conflicting evidence and alternative explanations

God as an explanation for anything is rejected and unscientific

It can only be scientific if it can be tested and potentially falsified. It can only be scientific if it can be explained and understood with demonstrable accuracy. And it definitely can't be scientific if it relies on the auto-deceptive nature of faith in lieu of evidence. God isn't an explanation of anything because it really doesn't explain anything because using magic as an excuse shows a lack of understanding that can't improve our understanding one whit.

But since you bring it up; What conflicting evidence?
What alternative explanations?

when are you going to cough up some legitimate science to support your side of this argument?

Since the question is rethorical I will answer it with a counter question. When are you going to admitt that the philosophy of science, know as evolution, is based on a concept, not demonstrated science?

I can't "admit" anything we already know isn't true. And that wasn't a rhetorical question. I challenged you to a debate who's whole and sole point was to prove that evolution was the only explanation of our origins with any evidentiary support or scientific validity; hence, the truest, best explanation. You accepted that challenge knowing already that you were in the wrong, and even admitted as much later on. But now you're again acting like you've got something to show. So I'm calling your bluff. Whatcha got?

 

[Aron-Ra]

"He also predicted that the Irish and the aboriginal would become extinct because the causation was the favored race. What's your point?" --That doesn’t make any sense. Give me a citation.

"The enquirer would next come to the important point, whether man tends to increase at so rapid a rate, as to lead to occasional severe struggles for existence; and consequently to beneficial variations, whether in body or mind, being preserved, and injurious ones eliminated. Do the races or species of men, whichever term may be applied, encroach on and replace one another, so that some finally become extinct?"

...describing his dream of a future for mankind when the black races of man, as well as the mountain gorilla of Africa, will hopefully become extinct, thus enhancing the chances for the evolutionary advancement of the more "civilized" races of man: "At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." (Descent of Man, Chapter Six: On the Affinities and Geneology of Man, On the Birthplace and Antiquity of Man)

The first paragraph is from Chapter 1. The second paragraph is from Chapter 6. The hateful interjection (in red) has no place here, and is wholly inaccurate. Darwin called the other apes "allies", and this implies no kind of "hope" for their extinction. Also he is talking about civility replacing savagry, and he hopes for man at that point to be even more civilized than the Cacausians of his day.

Now, why can't you ever answer the questions I ask? Where did he predict that the Irish and the aboriginal would become extinct because the causation was the favored race?

Natural selection is not competition between the organism and the environment.

In some cases, it is.

It is not the influence of the environment on the organism.

Yes it definitely is that.

It is not the competion of one species with another,

Yes it is, most of the time.

it is the war on nature between the strong and the weak within a species.

No its not. And where did you dig up this tripe?

"I dare say that ancestorial to ape and humans and ancestorial to humans only is a definite line the scientist draws in the sand." --Can you explain that comment?

"

Aegyptopithecus and other primates preceded the hominoids, which were ancestral to apes and humans. Honinids were ancestral to humans only."

This is yet another quote from Life (the textbook not the process) and I have elaborated on this at length.

If you did, it wasn't in any of the same threads I was posting to. I've never seen you elaborate on anything at length, unless you were ranting about someone's religion or philosophy, or some other irrelevant topic. Now, since you still haven't done so, can you now explain that comment about the difinite line in the sand?

Where we focused exclusivly on human evolution and comparing it to that of Apes and other primates I would have elaborated on this a great deal more, in fact I am disappointed that I never had the opportunity.

I kept begging you to take that opportunity over and over again, but you kept refusing to do so at every turn, and have never elaborated on any of this.

Frankly I considered it a dead end and was sure no answer would ever satisfy you.

Well, you're wrong again. Evidence is all I respond to. But after multiple requests, you still refuse to show any.

I was warned by a couple of people that the evidence would never convince someone that had allready made a naturalistic assumption.

I don't make assumptions. My naturalism is based on the logic that if any supernatural being wants to reach into the prime material plane and affect physical changes, he'll get his arm wet with physics. But since I used to hold spiritual beliefs that I would very much like to get back, why don't you cough up some of this evidence and see if I'll accept it or not? Or do you say these things only because you know you have no evidence to show?

Being a Calvinist I had allready heard this many times and known it to be true.

You're the one refusing evidence, of "walking in faith, not in sight", which keeps your mind closed to any other probability. My mind remains open as it always has been.

However, in my former debate I found it an interesting exercise so I didn't mind being coxed into it. I have since come to the conclusion that much of the reasoning is suppositional.

You're still maintaining your 100% error rate.

Regarding your claim that my definition of hominid was "bogus", I have already proved that they are not with substantive quotes from several major Universities and other science organizations. What do you have to back up your allegation?

What I consider bogus is the supposition that we are apes when clearly apes do not have the creative capacity for analytical thought we do. They certainly don't have capacity for designing and creating tools, which is one of my primary contentions. There has been a change in the terminology and I even cited the textbook I was using to emphasis how the fossils were rare and the reason for the new terminology was due to the nebulous concept of species. I elaborated at length on why taxonomy was largely a matter of semantics and I am still convinced that this is true.

Now as you try to answer my new questions on how life is classified, you should now realize that none of it was semantics. How will you define what it means to be a primate when you insist that primates do not have the creative capacity for analytical thought we do? How can we be primates, (as you say we are) if primates lack the capacity for designing and creating tools? None of this is remotely related to the definition of species, which I have already several times given you, and which still is neither nebulous nor relevant. And I had already addressed your text book when I told you to go back and read the preface of that book, The Changing Face of Biology—And Life.

"To say that the field of biology is changing rapidly is certainly an understatement. Only 50 years ago, James Watson and Francis Crick deciphered the three-dimensional structure of DNA. Now, with just a small DNA sample, biologists can decipher entire genomes—from the simplest bacterium whose genes hold clues to what it is to be alive, to species that seemingly straddle evolutionary leaps, to the most complex plant or animal. On a more practical level, DNA technology and the new life science of genomics have confirmed certain historical references, unraveled the tangled ancestries of wine grapes, and even helped prove the innocence of death row inmates.

"Biologists continue to use the molecules of life to reveal new glimpses of the evolutionary relationships that bind all organisms, even species that once thrived in a long-ago, vastly different world. As a result, the way in which biologists classify life is fundamentally different from what it was just a generation ago. Everywhere we look, it's easy to find evidence that these are exciting times for biologists."

So the answer to the question, what have you got to back up your allegation is....nothing.

I never seen the need to come up with so many different terms when the actual focus should have been on the evidence.

That was my opinion too. But you keep refusing to look at the evidence, and blame that on the definition for species, which you still think is nebulous, and still think that definition matters more than that evidence itself. Don't you realize that's what "semantics" means?

I was not, and I am not, interested in using precise terms when the actual fossils that are used to define species are ignored.

Then stop ignoring them, so we can boil this down.

I went to some trouble to elaborate on my problems with the Leaky find and I failed to receive a comment. There were a number of these fossils that raise more questions then answers and I cited a fairly reliable source for the statement. This point was never addressed very well and so I lost all interest in the semantics of taxonomy.

I made a specific request for you to elaborate on your vague hint that there some problems with one of Leakey's finds. But you refused that request, and never explained what you thought that problem was.

By the way, Dr. Leakey and his wife, Meave have both sent me a few emails in the last couple of years, and in one of them, Richard Leakey sent me a list of his finds. Perhaps you could at least tell me which of these finds you're talking about?

The taxonomic questions had allready been dismissed as subjective and were never tied directly to actuall evidence.

As I'm sure you can see now, none of them were subjective, and all of them were directly dependant on several types of evidence simultaneously.

Questions may be dismissed by you're own standard

You were supposed to "properly address" each of the questions. And if you intend to dismiss one, you have to explain why it is dismissable. You never did that. You just realized that you couldn't answer, so you pretended that you didn't have to.

and the length of the posts made it hard to answer every question directly.

That's an unfortunate fact in any discussion where nothing may be ignored.

Traditionally there are limits on the length and by the end the answers become more concise. We did the exact opposite and there was never a summary and may never even be a conclusion. That is not a debate, that is an argument.

You made it one by relying on emotional arguments and avoiding all the critical points brought up. Our positions should have narrowed down except that you habitually refused to concede any of the points you lost, and just added more losses to the list mostly in irrelevant rants, which you continued to argue even when I asked you to return to the topic. So this is not my fault.

 

[Aron-Ra]

That is an interesting proposition but it would seem that we allready know that it is a monkey. I guess it would depend on whether it is alive or dead for one thing.

No, it wouldn't.

If all we have a fragmentary fossils then we are left with fragmentary conclusions.

Not so. Eutherian mammals have very distinct teeth; so distinctly unique that its possible to identify any number of placental groups based solely on a single tooth. Apes for example, (all of them including ourselves) have a unique type of molar that is not shared by any other type of animal. All of us; gibbons, orangutans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans, (as well as the numerous extinct species) all have double-rooted molars that come to five points interrupted by a distinctive Y-shaped crevasse. No other animal has (or ever had) teeth like this. Its one of the many ways we can tell apes like ourselves apart from other animals.

Now if we are talking about an extinct monkey then we can do no better then simply compare what we have to existing monkeys and see how many thing are simular.

But you still have to have a definition of what a monkey is. Phylogeny provides that. Anything else would be semantics.

Where I have a problem is that often ancestory is presumed without a demonstrated mechanism. For instance, if we found a monkey with a larger skull, we should take into consideration every possible factor like the age, sex and possible disease or deformity.

Those are taken into account. Some fossils have even been found to have been diseased. But there is no disease that makes a sapiens look Neanderthal, and there isn't one to make other apes look more human, especially not when there are so many fossils who resemble each other so consistently.

And we do have a demonstrated mechanism. You yourself admitted to it when you said you accepted an evolutionary ancestry from Homo erectus to H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis. All that confuses me is the fact that you think we have evolutionary mechanisms even though you're trying to deny that any mutations are involved. I've heard geneticists claim that mutations occur with clockwork regularity, and that they can be logged in mitochondria. These mutations are how geneticists calculate diversity in the population at large. Yet you imagine they're very rare, most often deleterious, and not at all related to diversity. What do you know that all these genetic specialists don't? Because the amount of data they claim is staggering, and its especially impressive how everything syncs together so well. Then when I think of your constant denial of all of it, and I start wondering about the first question again. Why do you believe what you do? And do you really believe that? Or is that just something you tell yourself?

I would need something more specific to be honest and some kind of a criteria for discerning that this is indeed a new species.

Name it. Give me an example of what you would need.

Which of us is ignoring these thousand or so Hominines, Mark?

How many of these are complete and conclusive and how many are extant?

None of them are extant. Almost all of them are conclusive. But none of them are complete. VERY few fossils ever are. Do you realize that we only have six fossil tyrannosaurs, and only one of them has a head? Yet there still is no question that each of them did have a head, right?

What is even more important, how many years do these fossils account for?

Roughly six million. But I don't see why you thought that was important.

If Ghengis Khan had discovered gravity, would gravity be any less valid?

This is not a question, its a statement and largely a matter of opinion and speculation.

No, Sir. There's no way you could get opinion or speculation into this question. And it is a question. The answer to this one will be the same as the one asking about how evolution is at all dependant on Darwin's or Mayr's or Dobzhansky's philosophies, religious beliefs, or alleged socialist influences.

No one really discovered gravity, Newton demonstrated it based on the Y squared formula and predicted the course of a comet. What Newton did was to reduce a phenomenom to a precise formula. What Darwin did was to speculate on a conceptual philosophy of natural history. Big difference.

They're the same. They both realized something so simple and obvious that others had overlooked it for thousands of years.

All these unanswered questions were repeated in message #18. And since none of them were answered then either, then you had ignored all of them multiple times, in violation of the clause leading to a loss by default.

From the begining the standard has been what is considered a satisfactory answer. This like the taxonomic relations is too subjective to be considered an empirical standard. If you liked what you're opponent had to say then there would be no need for a debate, so it is wrong to reject their answer because you don't like it.

For most of these, you never gave me any answer to reject on any grounds. You made no attempt to answer in any way, and in fact, just made up excuses to get out of it, like you're still doing now.

I answered the first question not only once but repeatedly,

You've never answered it yet, because I still don't know why you believe in creationism or why you've chosen to reject scientific evidence to the contrary. And even if you could defend the gospels, which you still haven't done, it still doesn't reveal any of the Old Testament, which is all that is relevant here, as being an authority on anthing.

I answered the taxonomic questions.

Incorrectly, even by your own terms. Then you repeatedly refused to correct those answers.

I dismissed the followup questions for reasons stated repeatedly and that was well within the rules of debate we both agreed to.

I guess "well within translates as "fell far short" since there was no satisfactory reason ever submitted.

You said you believed all the human demes were related. Could you find a "direct link" for them? If so, what was it? just what do you mean by a "direct link"?

This one had a link that showed me pictures of various faces from different parts of the world, if memory serves. To answer the question, no, hows that?

Typical. If you'll notice, this wasn't a yes or no question. So you still haven't answered this either.

Specially-created organisms wouldn't have to conform to any taxonomic structure, yet everything that has ever lived does conform to that perfectly, and without exception. Can you explain that?

Because you can make it fit anyway you need to. Like I keep trying to tell you, these systematics are developed to be seen from the perspective of the observer.

You're saying that (for example) I could decide to list spiders as vertebrates if I want to. Of course I can't, because the only things that can be vertebrate are those things which actually have spines. So in reality, I can't make anything fit the way I want to, no matter how badly I might want to try.

I encountered this same problem a while back when I tried to nest scorpions within Eurypterida. None of the circumstantial commentary from entomologists was at all acceptible. I had to show profound physical evidence to back that position; evidence that was objectively testable, and (fortunately) survived the scrutiny of the three systematists I was debating this with.

How did you determine that any of these were specially-created separate from all these other similar organisms?

The 'specially-created' creatures are all dead and it would be next to impossible to find a speciman to identify each one. This is an impossible burden of proof and it doesn't mean that the universal common ancestor model is true my default. More suppositional systematics.

More pathetic excuses. I'm not asking for any one specific created individual. I'm asking for a parent genotype, one which is not related to any other taxa. Basically, what I'm asking you for is to define what a "kind" is, and to provide a potential example of one. I'm not asking for any burden of proof either. Just something we can start with to see if it is biologically unrelated to anything else. Surely you can give me something better than some nebulous, undiscoverable term, right?

 

[Aron-Ra]

What about those Christian sites I referred you to attesting to the beliefs of his (Darwin's) youth? Were these sites lying? If so, then exactly where were these lies?

Think about how they described his faith for a minute. At a very early age he is running to keep from being late for school and he attributes his running as being more helpfull then his prayer. He argues with his shipmates about the Bible being an absolute standard for morality and they laugh at him. None of the things that I have read about him describe what he actually believed about the Gospel, the ressurection or the person and work of Jesus Christ. He may well have professed a faith in Christianity but he never demonstrated that he had any of the core convictions. He worshiped at the Temple of Nature, he demonstrated that he never lost faith with it.

There is nothing here to indicate that Darwin was anything but a Christian, just as he, his friends, family, and associates said he was. Medieval Spaniards had a saying, "Pray to God, but keep on working". This is the same sentiment as Darwin's running prayer. And we have no idea what his arguments were regarding the moral standards in the Bible. But I've heard probably all the arguments for that, and I find them all laughable. That doesn't mean the person sharing them with me is any less Christian. Your judgements have failed. And you've failed to answer yet another of my questions; which was to point out where the Christian sites like about his beliefs.

how do we determine the humanity of any fossil species if we don't happen to find their tools with them, as we usually won't?

Now that would depend on what we are looking at wouldn't it? Again I would need a specific find to make any kind of a postive statement about this. When looking at the Leaky find, what was used to determine that that it was a human ancestor?

In each of his several finds, the method used was anthropometry; precise measurments of various aspects of the skeleton. But in addition to that is a very good understanding of phylogeny, and a precise definition of what a hominid is. If you ask Leakey what a monkey or an ape is, he'll tell you without hesitation, and you can check his answer to see that he is right.

In order to identify something as a human ancestor, you must first identify it as an ape: which means it must be a haplorhine anthropoid, a eutherian mammal, synapsid amniote, and a tetrapoidal vertebrate, etc. etc. Then you have to determine whether the anthropometric measurments match what we would expect for a transitional species. Does it appear to have evolved from Australopiths, or something very much like them? And are its features all consistently intermediate between that and some Homoine species? If not, you may end up with something like Kenyanthropus platyops, (Flat-faced man from Kenya) another fossil hominid which is generally considered to be human, but not believed to be ancestral to any other known human species.

I invited you to continue the discussion only because there were still some things I wanted you to address. Of course, you never did.

I did get into the evidence but dismissed most of the taxonomic rationalizations. I tried to steer the conversation into genetics since it is the most viable scientific evidence available, in fact I still am as the opening section of my last unanswered post in that forum attests to.

I hardly think you're ready to argue genetics if you're still denying mutations, since they're now being measured the way dendrochronologists read tree rings. And hopefully, now that you've seen how these things are categorized, you're beginning to see that taxonomy isn't "rationalization". I don't have to rationalize any of the features that assign a particular group to a particular clade. And if I did, someone would likely correct me soon enough. That has happened a number of times already, and can only happen in objective sciences.

do we try to figure out how something really happens? Or do we just use the excuse that it must be magic? Do we examine the processes we can actually see, and know to be involved? Or do we make up something incredulous and wholly improbable, that doesn't make any sense, and can't be tested or evidenced in any way, -and believe that instead, for literally no reason at all?

Such as...?

How about if we throw up our hands and say that it must be magic? For example, we can blame the Grand Canyon on Paul Bunyon, Pecos Bill, or Noah. What's the difference?

"there is a limited gene pool that can account for all of the changes in populations over time given a universal ancestor model." --what is this limitation? And how do we know it really exists? Especially since you already said, earlier in this thread, that it didn't.

The possible variations of the existing gene pool.

It looks like you started to restate the question, but forgot to answer it. The possible variations in any existing gene pool appear to be unlimited. You say there is a limit. I want to know what that limit is? And how do we know there is one?

What falsifiable predictions have creation "scientists" ever published for peer-review?

Creation scientists have been published but anything that hints of creationism is rejected without qualification.

So what falsifiable predictions have creation "scientists" ever proposed for anyone?

It would be interesting to see what would happen if the work the did around Mt St Helens were critically peer reviewed though.

That's a good idea. Why don't you present some, and we'll see how well it holds up?

Of course, if you accept this H. erectus as human,

then why wouldn't you accept this A. africanus as human too?

Partly because of the skull size but mostly due to the use of tools and fire.

As you can see, the skull sizes are very similar. But what if we never found any of the Pithecanthropus tools or camp sites? How would we know if they were human then?

What would you accept?

I have no idea what you are expecting an answer to here.

What evidence, (that actually applies to evolutionary Theory) would you accept to demonstrate common ancestry as valid? And what evidence or arguments would you accept to falsify your own notions of Creationism; Adam being made from dirt, the global flood, uniculturalism at the Tower of Babel, etc. etc.?

science requires demonstrable evidence, objective experiments, testable hypotheses, and objectively falsifiable theories. What have you got?

For one thing, there is no way a new species can arise from a mutation of the DNA strand.

Well, I've already given you a half-dozen examples where exactly that has happened, and I can provide at least a handful more. So that contention is false. But I wasn't asking for criticisms of evolution. I was asking for demonstrable evidence, objective experiments, testable hypotheses, and objectively falsifiable theories that actually indicate a Genesis-type scenario instead. So once again, what have you got?

Within the confines of this debate, I have given you everything you asked for. What exactly did you think I have yet to provide? What sort of definition are looking for, and for which examples?

The terms and type specimans of the taxonomic terms you quized me on.

Such as? I asked you to be specific. What sort of definition were you looking for?

How many apes or monkeys were there? (on board the ark) And how many marsupials?

Don't know, the book of Genesis did not come with a list of the particular animals brought on board.

Not that it matters because the ark story never really happened. But that's why we have to use science, isn't it? The Bible doesn't explain it, so we have to find another way to figure it out. Now since you propose that some of these groups arose as separate kinds, unrelated to one another by any natural, biological means, then whatever was on the ark would represent those distinctly separate kinds, right? So, do you have any idea how many anythings were on board?

Now I am going to ask the thread be closed if you refuse to finish the debate. I think it is only fair to warn you that if I do I intend to write a conclusion first. It's you're choice if you want the last word or not.

As I told you at the onset, it wouldn't make any sense for me to write a conclusion, especially if it followed yours. The way I set this up was for the conclusion to be reached by your admission prior to the 12th mutual exchange, and that has already happened a long time ago. After seeing your tactics here, and since this debate was not controlled by moderators, then I fully expect you to write some strange rationalization promoting notions I have already disproved, accusing me of things I've never done, and perhaps denying all the ways that you lost again, as you've done in this thread too. But I can't do anything about that. So I have already written my own conclusions explanining my position. I am confident that whatever you say will be measured against your reputation, if not also by the preceding dialogue, so it won't matter what you try to claim in the end. My reputation will remain intact.

Now we can discuss a new one in the invitation area. Go ahead and propose a list of rules and I'll ask the prospective moderators I am trying to enlist to check it out. That is, if I have agreed to them. Keep this in mind though, the formal debate rules are non-negotiable.

It won't make any difference.

I'll determine my requirments when I see how you deal with what I've already shown you. Did you read the testomonies of the former creationists like I said you should? And if not, why not?

Also, in our current discussion on this thread, if you want things to wind down, answer the questions as they were asked, and don't introduce any new errors you know I'll have to correct. It takes a whole lot longer to adequately explain any scientific reality than it does to spout some erroneous jibberish, and that's why these posts keep getting longer and longer.

 

[mark kennedy]

Here as before, you're demonstrating that you have no understanding of systematics in any capacity really, but certainly not as it applies to biology. When you blame your confusion on a "labyrinth of terminology" or "word salad" it can only indicate that you don't know what any of these words mean. Why don't you just say so politely, without calling me a liar in the process?
That's right. You're calling me names while accusing me of calling you names. This is what prompted me to call you the first and only name I remember using. Criticizing your own faults in someone else is hypocrisy. Anyone who practices hypocrisy is a hypocrite. And I am not lying no matter how often you say I am.

Oh but I do understand, and you have said yourself that it doesn't matter how you define the terms. I don't know where you get that I am calling you a liar but that is something that only you have to rationalize. True to form you started off with a personal attack, why am I not supprised.

Now I think I'm beginning to see the problem. Your writing is really bad, so its hard to understand you. But I think your definition of semantics is opposite of the real one. It would be semantics if the exact definitions of the terms were paramount and independent of anything else. But that's not the case here because it doesn't matter what words you use to recognize these groups, because the evident relationships don't change no matter what semantics you use. I do have precise definitions for everything, but you rejected all of those definitions. That's why I had to demonstrate this to you some other way. That's when you started pretending that I hadn't defined anything, and wrote everything off as semantics again.

Because that's all it has ever been with you, semantics. You didn't demonstrate anything other then the ability to rationalize endlessly. I am really not into the personal remarks, lets see what the rest of you're posts have to offer.

Once again I must repeat that this does not pivot on any fulcrum definition, so it doesn't matter if it is "discoverable" in every case or not. The meaning of all the terms I provided were truth, so I don't know why you rejected them. I am still not a liar no matter how many times you call me that name. And taxonomy is a demonstrative science that is utterly independant of semantics.

That is not where that comes from. Taxonomy is in a state of flux and it can hardly be considered a science especially when it cannot define the central terms being used.

For example, viruses are not considered to be alive because they lack metabolism. So all life on Earth is either Prokaryote or Eukaryote. There have been some revision of these terms as our understanding of them has improved. But that doesn't negate the fact that our understanding has improved, and that the current concept is indeed more accurate than any predecessor. Now, can you tell the difference between these two taxonomic domains? Or do you still think its just semantics?

I know that it is just semantics and I quess you're question would depend on the taxonomic domain, wouldn't it?

Protists, (which are actually a conglomerate group) along with algae, plants, animals, and fungi are all taxonomic kingdoms within the domain, Eukarya, meaning they all have eukaryote cells. If all of the one group contains internal nuclei and organelles where none of the other group does, then is this demonstrable? Or is it just another subjective opinion? I'm interested in hearing your answer though I doubt you'll want to answer this.

You are interested in hearing my answer to what? How these unicellular organisms are grouped together as a matter of semantics tell us less then nothing about how the human race came to be. What is even more interesting is that these cells have not changed over time but lets see where you go with this.

The members of the animal kingdom are determined by their unique cellular structure. Whether you call them animals or metazoans, this fact does not change, so it can't be semantics. But even if it was, isn't it still demonstrably true? If it is, then it is empirical. If it is not, then it is as you say, merely a subjective opinion. Please answer this, and each of the following questions I pose to you, and I'll show you how our debate was supposed to work.

Isn't it demonstatably true that what? So they have cells in common and there are unique about them, so what? That is not common ancestory.

Within kingdom Animalia, there are a few different groups, sponges, comb jellies, cnidarians, etc., as well as one group called Bilateria, a group of animals with a particular type of symmetry. Is bilateral symmetry objectively determined by direct observation, and thus empirical?

As usuall you have introduced a term you didn't bother defining you're central term. Bilateral symmerty may well be important in classifying these creatures but it is hardly relevant when taken in context of how we define species. Just elaborate on the concept of bilateral semmetry and I will respond but just tossing the verbage into the mix is not going to get us anywhere.

Bilateral animals are divided into several different groups. One of them, Dueterostromia, is determined in embryology by the fact that the anus develops before the mouth, unlike all other bilateral animals, except perhaps for sponges. Is this objectively determined? Or mere opinion?

I have no real reason to contest this point so I think it is safe to say this is observed and not worth argueing about.

Dueterostromes are either echinoderms, hemichordates, or chordates, the latter being determined by the presence of a spinal chord. I remember you whined a bit about embryology earlier. But this is one of the specific applications of that. All chordates develop the same way, anus first, unlike all other animals without spinal chords. Now, is this demonstrable science? And since you've accused me of lying so many times already, where and why is any of this untrue?

Dueterostromes are either echindoerms, hemichordates or chordates and only the chordates develop the anus first. I don't know if you are lying or not but the signifigance of this point is pedantic rethoric at a level I have never seen before.

There are a handful of groups within the phylum, Chordata. One of the sub-groups includes every animal in the world that has a skull. Can you objectively determine what animals have skulls? There are two groups within Craniates, one of which includes every animal in the world with spinal vertebrae. Can that be objectively determined? There are two groups within the subphylum, Vertebrata; one of them includes every animal in the world with jaws. Is the presence of jaws empirical or subjective?

Why would I have a problem with how these classifications are organized? Can you objectively determine that animals have skulls? Are you kidding me?

Much more importantly, some animals have skulls but no jaws, but every animal with jaws has a skull. Some animals have vertebrae and no skull. But every animal with a skull has vertebrae. Not everything with a spinal chord has vertebrae, odd though that seems. But every animal with vertebrae has a spinal chord in it, just as every gnathostomate, Craniate, Vertebrate, Chordate is also a bilateral metazoan eukaryote, just as you would expect them to be if they had all evolved from a common ancestor. But this is not what you would ever expect from a common creator not bound by the laws of inheritance. So these facts imply common ancestry. But do any of these facts "presuppose" it, as you implied they did? And now that you know how each of these are determined, do you still think it is only semantics? And if so, why?

Typical. Any simularity is a common ancestor and any difference is an evolutionary change. There is nothing implied here, just presumed.

Gnathostomata is divided into a handful of subgroups, one of which include every jawed organism that also has legs, beginning of course with lobe-finned fish, and including several extinct forms as well as amphibians and amniotes. Amniota includes every animal in the world who's embryos develop within an amnion or amniotic sac. Is this empirically determined, Mark? Is any of this less than truthful?

Of course I won't argue that these organisms are classified in this way. Now as far as the truth of you're statement, I have no real reason to deny you're honesty in how you express this. What is interesting here is that you introduced another group of terms that you never bothered to define.

Amniotes include three groups which are still extant, one of which may include another. Anapsids, diapsids, and synapsids are all determined by the number of temporal fenestra, openings in the skull behind the eye.

[/quote]

More verbage, again I have no reason to deny this, just don't see the signifigance.

[quote]http://tolweb.org/tree/ToLimages/Amniota_fenestration.gif

Anapsids include turtles and a whole lot of other fossil forms including shell-less turtles and turtles on the half-shell, as well as other things that aren't very turtle-like at all. Diapsids fall into two groups depending on the number of chambers in their hearts, another objectively empirical observation. On the two-chambered side are lepidosaurs, the "true" reptiles, which include loads of extinct groups as well as sphenodons (tuatara) and Squamates, (lizards and snakes). The archosaurs are the diapsids with four-chambered hearts, among other distinguishing morphologies. These include phytosaurs, pterosaurs, crocodilians, dinosaurs, and birds. The synapsid group consists of every mammal that has ever lived, as well as a number of "mammal-like reptiles"; pelycosaurs and therapsids, etc. Is any of this subjective opinion or semantics? If you still think it is, please explain.

How do you determine the extinct animals hearts from the living ones? There are about a dozen terms in this particular string of verbage that doesn't really do anything to clarify the issue. In fact it makes for more of the same word salad I have come to expect.

Class mammalia includes extinct multituberculates, paleorectoids, and triconodonts, as well as the monotremes, marsupials, and eutherians which still survive. Mammals are fur-bearing (follicled) hemeothermic synapsids with mammae. Is this philosophical? Or can your status as a mammal be demonstrated scientifically?

Is it philosophical? No actually it's extraneous verbage and I have no idea what you think the signifigance is.

Eutherians are a sub-group of mammals which are born live in a placenta. Is this semantics, Mark? Is any part of this not demonstrable science? Do you see any state of flux with any of the terms here? Are there any which I have not adequately defined for you? Do you need to know what the word, 'species' means in order to understand the real, objectively demonstrable scientific meaning of any of these other terms? I so, which ones? And how would discovering some other definition of species that I haven't already given you aid your understanding of these parent groups? Do you see any "rationalizing' involved with any of these? If so, where and why? Are any of these terms speculative? Are any of them "supposition" in the opinion of the observer? If so, how? Are any of these distinctions not directly tied to genetic and fossil evidence simultaneously? If so, which ones? Do any of these ignore any evidence? If so, what? Could any of it have been subjectively manipulated to fit the model? Give specifics in any case where you think it could have been, and remember to explain how this could be done. Also be sure to explain why anyone would want to do such a thing.

The first problem with this is that you never bothered to define these terms you throw out like gospel. The main problem is that you do this as a matter of course.

Now since you agree that men are primates, (Anthropoids) then you must accept that this term is scientifically demonstrable, and not just a matter of subjective opinion. So why don't you define that term for me, and tell me how to tell a primate from any other placental mammal? Are there subdivisions within this group? If so, what are they, and how could we recognize them? And would it matter if you were looking at a dead one or a live one? Do you need to know what a species is in order to know if any example animal is a primate or not? Could you still tell what one was even if you only found a skull or even just one of the back teeth? Do you need to find the whole skeleton before you can know that you're holding a piece of a once-complete primate?

For one thing I never introduced the term and for another you never explained how the term was introduced in the first place. You keep asking me questions that you should be explaining the answers to. Now as far as what we could determine about an extinct animal from just the skull and jaw is just that, the skull and jaw. I'll get to the rest of the posts but if this one is any indication of what to expect then I doubt the creationism is in any real trouble

 

[mark kennedy]

The one where you said that all mutations were deleterious or harmful; Another one where you said you were still waiting for a single example of a beneficial mutation after I had already shown a half dozen of them; A follow-up comment where you claimed those examples weren't really mutations after you had already seen medical documentation confirming that each one of them was; And the other comments about how rare they are, even though hundreds of them per zygote can't exactly be rare. Pretty much everything you've said so far has been proven wrong, but you refuse to admit that in any case, no matter how solidly it is proved.

Most of what you have tried to prove is begging the question of proof. So there are maybe 100 mutation in the Zygote as a result of transcription errors in the DNA? Most of these are going to be deleted and certainly don't result in speciation, in fact, in the overwhelming majority of cases it produces no selective advantage at all. A mutation is not the same thing as an inheritable trait since traits can change at random and the population still be in stasis, which is the rule rather then the exception. You may not consider 1 mutation in 10,000 to 100,000 copies a rare occurance, I do. No speciation has occured due to mutations, it simply doesn't happen. The occasional benificial mutation is anecdotal evidence and is hardly a demonstated mechanism of the ubiquitious common ancestory of all creatures.

You like taxonomic relations but you don't seem willing to recognize you're own presumptions with regards to ancestory. Of the millions of animal species discovered only about 45,000 are vertebrates. The other 750,000 are insects, crusttaceans, spiders...etc. Now I am aware that biologists must define and distinquish animals as eating other organisms, move, and have cells that lack walls and secrete extracellular matrix. That is the definition they use to distinquish animals from other living creatures and it is actually an analogy that turned into a wrong demonstration of science. Sir Francis Bacon refered to this human tendancy as idols of the theater:

Idols of the theater - "...there are idol which have crept into men's minds from the various dogmas of peculiar systems of philosophy, and also from the perverted rules of demonstration...for we regard all the systems of philosophy hitherto received or imagined, as so many plays brought out and performed, creating fictitious and theatrical worlds." (Sir Francis Bacon, Novum Organum)

There are many examples of this in modern biology but I will address only two for the moment. Choanoflagellates, or something like them, are said to be a probable ancestor of modern animals. What is this based on? They are simular to sponges in their ribosomal RNA and very distant from other plants and fungi. Apparently that is all the is required to establish a homological relationship and common ancestory. Before the Cambrian explosion these unusual looking creatures are thought to be the precursors of the explosion of living systems which includes the emergance of vertabras. In fact, all the major groups of animals (classes and phyla) appear in the Cambrian and Ordovician periods. What is puzzling about this is that one of the aquired traits are not minor variations in the existing genetic load but an exponential increase in the gene pool that includes the development of skeletons. This is one of the more confusing aspects of homology as conceptual science. This is nothing more then a creation of a fictitious and theatrical world, a wrong demonstration of science and an idol of the theater.

It is ironic that I am continually being called a hypocrite since the word simply means one who wears a mask. In Grecian theater the actors would switch masks in the course of the play and Jesus Christ was the first to use the term to distinquish the genuine article of faith from pretenders.

Homology is really just an analogy and for some reason these analogies are confused with demonstrative science. Structures are often independent of one another but their simularity are homologous structures. This is presumably inherited from a common ancestor but the truth is that they are nothing more then analogous structures because they are not made from the same materials, or organized in the same way which would indicate they they don't have a common ancestor. This kind of reasoning is highly presumptive and a wrong demonstration of science, in fact, it's an argument of science falsely so called.

The one thing you conceded was the comment that reptiles had a three-chambered heart. But you divorced yourself from even that error by dismissing it a "careless statement". I don't believe it is possible for you to honorably concede any error, even if you yourself know you're wrong. But I have had to do that many times in my debates. And it has been to my benefit each time.

The three-chambered heart was not a crucial point for me but the radical transition of the metabolism was. I cited the source where I had seen that there was a question that the heart in one fossil may have been an artifact. Now I did concede my error, in fact, I would never claim a benefit when I was clearly wrong. That is the same mentality that is creating taxonomic clads that doesn't define or determine anything for certain. It is also the same rationalization that claims that mutations could serve as the driving force in evolution and it's more demonstrative proof. When the genetics are mutated there is a net loss of genetic information and the development of skeletons could not be the result of genetic mutations. Here again we have wrong laws of demonstration and an idol of the theater.

The Bible has not been peer-reviewed, and couldn't be. The only predictions it has ever made which can be tested have all failed, and each of the claims which we could test, -the genetic bottlenecks from Noah/Adam, the single language at the tower of Babel, the global flood, hours of global darkness, etc.- have all been disproved. But the problem is that the excuse of inexplicable magic conjured by a deceptive god is such that the whole notion defies testing by discarding any rules that apply to anything we know about reality, and piles spells upon compounded spells that all defy even a hypothetical explanation. In other words, the Bible can't be peer-reviewed because it can't be falsified. And it can't be falsified because there is nothing you people would ever accept to indicate that any part of it was wrong.

Another fallacious diatribe that does not address the Bible with regards to it's central emphasis. The ressurection is the heart of New Testament theology and the bibliographical testing, that is done on all writings of antiquity, have been applied to the Bible exaustivly. The Bible was and is critically peer reviewed and there is far more to a scientific inquiry then biological phenomonon. It could be falsified if the wittness is found to be incompetant, deceptive or did not directly experience the events discribed.

There is a direct connection to natural science, for instance, Carolus Linnaeus intended the species to be the same as a created kind. Species is the Latin word for kind. One of the falsifications that have never been conceded by evolutionary thought are the transitionals, which I have discussed at length. The only place we can find these supposed transitional is in the fossil record and they pose more questions then answers. This is yet another wrong demonstration of science and an idol of the theater.

The very basis of dogmatic faith is to refuse free inquiry, treat objectivity as a sin, (which you have done several times in this discussion) and never to admit when you're wrong. That and you must apply a double-standard where the opposition has to bare all burden of truth in every case, while you don't even have to answer for anything ever, and can just make up whatever you want and call it truth. But since you like to call me a liar, perhaps you could show me up here by showing me what journals were published baring the first -hand critical analysis of the public at-large, believers and non-believers alike. I'm curious to see how it was confirmed that anyone ever witnessed the power of God first-hand. If that had been done, and it was confirmed in critical inquiry, then why are there still non-believers and believers in other gods?

You claim that I refuse free inquiry and treat objectivity as sin which is alltogether untrue. The burden of truth at the heart of the emphasis in the Bible has been met by every objective standard of evidence that it has been tested with. The Skeptic on the other hand need not be objective just weild it's rationalizations like a sword. You are curious to see how I confirmed that anyone ever witnessed the power of God first hand and yet you have not the slightest interest of how the rules of legal evidence where applied to the New Testament witness? I repeatedly laid out the evidence in an orderly fashion and you have stubbornly, dogmaticlly, and satirically rejected all of it without qualification. There can only be one explanation for this, naturalistic assumptions.

Actually, the democracy (I know you guys hate that word) -that we live in was founded on secularism, as was the Renaissance, which was nothing more than a departure from the rule of the church. I don't know what reformation you're talking about. But since you've been dead-wrong on every point every time thus far, you're probably going to be wrong about that too.

Are you actually oblivious that John Locke was a Puritan Whig, as was Ben Franklin. Are you further repulsed that Democracy was a concept that was developed during the Reformation and this is elaborated at length in Alexis De Tocqueville's 'Democracy in America'.

"Let us recollect the situation of France seven hundred years ago, when the territory was divided amongst a small number of families, who were the owners of the soil…Soon, however, the political power of the clergy was founded, and began to exert itself: the clergy opened its ranks to all classes, to the poor and the rich, the villain and the lord; equality penetrated into the Government through the Church,

In the United States the sovereign authority is religious … there is no country in the whole world in which the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the soul of its utility, and of its conformity to human nature, than that its influence is most powerfully…

Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country… Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all the Americans have a sincere faith in their religion, for who can search the human heart? …but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions…

(Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America)

Christians hate democracy? This is completly baseless and contrary to the actual history of the best developed and longest sustained demoncratic form of government in history. Now as far as the Renaissance it was allmost exclusivly a religious movement where the greatest minds in Europe moved into monestaries to pray and to study. If you really belive that points clearly lost should be honorably conceded then you should concede this point. I doubt seriously you will accept that you have been refuted on this point but I can't wait to see you're reaction when you are obviously wrong.

"We humans long to be connected with our origins. So we create rituals. Science is another way to express this longing. It also connects us with our origins. And it too has its rituals, and its commandments. Its only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths. All assumptions must be critically examined. Arguments from authority are worthless. Whatever is inconsistent with the facts, no matter how fond of it we are, must be discarded or revised."
--Carl Sagan, COSMOS, the final episode

Then there is at least one sacred truth, that the sacred does not exist. While I do accept that natural science must be critical it is nevertheless founded on the concept of natural law. A presumption of non-supernatural events as being the limit of science is a pedantic oversimplification of reality and results in a confusing mass of correlations that do not exist.

Religion is the antithesis of science, and is nothing like a science in any respect. How can it be falsified? What testible predictions has it ever made? What experiments can be performed to test how accurate religious beliefs are? What Theory has been proposed? Based on what observed or demonstrable facts? If all the world's Christians still can't prove that theirs is the most accurate denomination, and all the world's theists still can't prove that God even exists, and all the religions combined still can't even show the slightest evidence that anything supernatural was ever real, and none of this can even be believed without faith, then there ain't no kind of science anywhere involved with it.

The Medelian laws of inheritance and the Linnaeus taxonomic classifications are both creation science. The conception of universal common ancestory did not become main stream science untill Darwins tree of life model was accepted. What's more, I have exponded at length on the primary element of New Testament theology and you have all but ignored it. There are events in history that cannot be tested or observed and yet it is embraced as scientific, there is you're double standard. There were demonstrated and observed facts throughout redemptive history and the only way it is rejected as historically verifiable is by presumptions that the supernatural is impossible.

 

[mark kennedy]

But how do you explain the conflict with your statemtent here, and PubMed's position that nearly everyone is born with more than 100 mutations?

The mutations where never denied by me or by creationism at large. Mutations, even benificial ones, happen but they are not an explanation for our origins. Proportionally the mutations compared to accurate transcription of the DNA are negligable. The overwhelming majority of these are deletrious, neutral, or harmfull. You had no answer for this so you abandoned the formal debate. You are still argueing in circles about this and this is yet another point you have conceded by this glaring ommision and by repeating the same tired rethoric over and over.

Since all the geneticists and cutting-edge peer-reviewed biologists I know say the very opposite; that mutations are the variations in the gene pool, then I have to know what you know that none of my professors do. If variations in the gene pool are not mutation, then what are they?

What these geneticists are saying is that the mutations are very difficult to find even in the most simple of organisms. A variation in the gene pool is just that, a random combination that does not change the gene load one iota. A mutation in order to create an alltoghter new creature like vertabras must rewrite the genetic code and this must be accounted for with a demonstrated mechanism. No such mechanism exists but there is one for creationism, the gene pool was created in an instant and this explains the data conclusivly.

Trying to deny the common ancestry implied at every level of every field is holding science back, as is threatening to teach creationism and intelligent design in school.

There being only two explanations that exaust the explanations of our origins it is wrong to exclude the multiple common ancestory model. In fact I showed you how abandoning the universal common ancestory model has help to propel research forward. Creationism is not a modern form of thought, in fact it was creationists that founded biology and the various other related sciences. Creationism cannot be discarded without rupturing natural science and at this crucial period in history it is wrong to inspire anti-religious thinking, this would cut science off at it's root.

You think this is cutting edge science? If this is the best you can do, why do you keep trying?

This author is literally proposing that the first man accidentally assembled himself out of random organic molecules, and that he rose up and walked out of the primordial ooze fully-formed, along with every other living thing on Earth. He says that random inanimate chemicals can just unintentionally amass themselves into a frog, or a dog, a camel, or whatever, without any of the evolutionary processes you already said you accept, including ring species, (which we both already know is true) and without need or involvement of any god. Didn't you even think for a moment about what position that puts you in? Are you sure this is the "cutting edge science" you wanted to show to an atheist?

That is not what the author is saying, he is saying that the universal common ancestory model is wrong. Since we are debating the merits of the only two explanations for our origins this becomes a crucial refutation of the universal common ancestory model. This defies the natrualistic assumptions of the atheist and disproves the most jealosly guarded aspect of modern evolution, the idol of universal common ancestory.

Dr. Periannan Senapathy is a legitimate scientist, I’ll grant you that. But he published this concept in a book, not a journal. And like creationists, this author also ignores taxonomy and everything we've ever confirmed about evolution, (especially the fact that it has been many times observed). And he is only concerned with abiogenesis, which he proposes to be happening all the time! But then he makes some very strange extrapolations based on what he has found. Don't you bother to investigate any of your own sources? Haven't you at least read any of the reviews of his conclusions by other creationists?

You seem to have missed the main point here, the taxonomic tree of life is actually built in order to make retrivial of information more readily available. Then when these catagories are established they are considered proof of common ancestory. The analogy becomes a definition that is neither definate nor determined, here are a couple of problems with this approach.

"Mayr defines biological classification as "an information storage and retrieval system," whose aim is the same as that of a "classification of books in a library or goods in a store," i.e., "to locate an item with a minimum of effort and loss of time" (1). This leads then to a "principle of balance," by which "the retrieval of information is greatly facilitated [when] the taxa at a given categorical rank are, as far as possible, of equal size and degree of diversity" (1). Is this what biological classification is about? Is it this arbitrary, this artificial? Is functional utility the primary consideration in its design? Of course not, and I am sure Dr. Mayr knows that. Darwin said: "Our classifications will come to be, as far as they can be so made, genealogies" (23), and that dictum forever changed the nature of biological classification. Since Darwin's time the basis for classification has been absolute, its primary aim being to encapsulate organismal descent. And this natural ordering necessarily has utility as an information storage and retrieval system."

( Default taxonomy: Ernst Mayr's view of the microbial world, Carl R. Woese)

The classifications become genealogies so the utility of the system has become an icon of descent. All that is necessary is that the simularities and differences be listed. This is Mayr's old trick:

"As evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr put it, after Darwin the "biologically most meaningful definition" of homology was: "A feature in two or more taxa is homologous when it is derived from the same (or a corresponding) feature of their common ancestor." (Mayr, 1982) In other words, what Darwin proposed as the explanation for homology became its definition."

(Homology: A Concept in Crisis, Jonathan Wells and Paul Nelson)

Gert Kortoff's critique

mentions nothing of the grave religious implications, and destroys Senapathy's extrapolated arguments on purely scientific grounds.

Interesting but Dr Senapathy is actually using his model effectivly, the universal common ancestor model got in his way. I am not really interested in extrapolated arguments at this time, in fact, I am going in the other direction.

For what its worth, I don't think he has proved abiogenesis. If he had, he would be guaranteed a Nobel prize, that's for sure. And if he was right, it would dessimate both Biblical creationism and even the vaguest notions of Intelligent Design Theory. But the extrapolated assumptions he has compiled onto his core discovery are absurd to say the very least, and can't begin to compete with all the things we already know are true of evolution.

I strongly disagree with that particular sentiment. For one thing the universal common ancestor model is the key to the taxonomic tree of life. Take this one down a notch and the rest will unravel. I said before that as more information comes to light the universal common ancestory model would begin to fall apart, but I wonder if it won't just reinvent itself the way it allways has. Darwin said that unless the gradual accumulation of traits could be firmly established then his theory would completly fall apart. The only way the universal common ancestory model is even conceivable is because it gets stretched over eons. This is not demonstrative science it's a conceptual philosophical premise that knows no falsification.

Incidentally, this same site also mentioned Elizabeth Pennisi, another legitimate scientist most frequently quoted by creationists for her peer-reviewed journal article, "Is it time to uproot the tree of life?". This is also absurd because Pennisi is a taxonomist herself, and supports evolution from common ancestry exclusively. Her work even contributed to the Tolweb site I already referred you to.

"The rooting of the Tree of Life, and the relationships of the major lineages, are controversial." Pennisi believes there is no root. And as I told you before, she may be right, meaning there may be as many as a half-dozen common ancestors for all life, and not the "single universal common ancestor" you kept arguing for. "The monophyly of Archaea is uncertain, and recent evidence for ancient lateral transfers of genes indicates that a highly complex model is needed to adequately represent the phylogenetic relationships among the major lineages of Life. [Eubacteria, Eukaryotes, Archaebacteria, and viruses] We hope to provide a comprehensive discussion of these issues on this page soon. For the time being, please refer to the papers listed in the References section." ...and that's where you'll find Pennisi's article, which doesn't in any way imply anything like what the creationists all wanted it to. And you accuse me of grasping at straws?! You creationists are masters of irony. [/size][/font]

From the subtitle:

"New genome sequences are mystifying evolutionary biologists by revealing unexpected connections between microbes thought to have diverged hundreds of millions of years ago."

This is the opposite of what was expected if you had a gradual accumulation of genetic traits. They didn't diverge over millions of years, in fact, they have hardly changed at all. Here are a couple of exerpts I thought were interesting:

"...But on one front--the study of evolution--the information pouring out in the genome sequences has so far proved more confusing than enlightening. Indeed, it threatens to overturn what researchers thought they already knew about how microbes evolved and gave rise to higher organisms..."

"...From the whole genomes, you very quickly come across [genes] that don't agree with the rRNA tree..."

Finally here is my personal favorite:

"This prehistoric commune might have worked well for early life, but it adds to the challenge for biologists trying to make sense of it all. With each descendent from this community "having taken up different things from the ancestor, you won't be able to draw clear trees," Woese points out. He still has faith, however, that organisms roughly followed the patterns of evolution seen in changes in rRNA and that the three kingdoms will remain intact."

Despite the fact that that we won't be able to draw clear trees he has faith that the three kingdoms will remain intact. The irony here is that the actual science is systematiclly taking the tree of life model apart. There are only two possible explanations for our origins and if the universal common ancestor model continues to erode then we will be left with only one plausable explanation, God.

This was fun, I can't wait to get to the other posts.

 

[yossarian]

What these geneticists are saying is that the mutations are very difficult to find even in the most simple of organisms. A variation in the gene pool is just that, a random combination that does not change the gene load one iota. A mutation in order to create an alltoghter new creature like vertabras must rewrite the genetic code and this must be accounted for with a demonstrated mechanism. No such mechanism exists but there is one for creationism, the gene pool was created in an instant and this explains the data conclusivly.

you do not know what you're talking about

That is not what the author is saying, he is saying that the universal common ancestory model is wrong. Since we are debating the merits of the only two explanations for our origins this becomes a crucial refutation of the universal common ancestory model. This defies the natrualistic assumptions of the atheist and disproves the most jealosly guarded aspect of modern evolution, the idol of universal common ancestory.

there is no refutation mark

From the subtitle:

"New genome sequences are mystifying evolutionary biologists by revealing unexpected connections between microbes thought to have diverged hundreds of millions of years ago."

This is the opposite of what was expected if you had a gradual accumulation of genetic traits. They didn't diverge over millions of years, in fact, they have hardly changed at all.Here are a couple of exerpts I thought were interesting:

"...But on one front--the study of evolution--the information pouring out in the genome sequences has so far proved more confusing than enlightening. Indeed, it threatens to overturn what researchers thought they already knew about how microbes evolved and gave rise to higher organisms..."

"...From the whole genomes, you very quickly come across [genes] that don't agree with the rRNA tree..."

Finally here is my personal favorite:

"This prehistoric commune might have worked well for early life, but it adds to the challenge for biologists trying to make sense of it all. With each descendent from this community "having taken up different things from the ancestor, you won't be able to draw clear trees," Woese points out. He still has faith, however, that organisms roughly followed the patterns of evolution seen in changes in rRNA and that the three kingdoms will remain intact."

Despite the fact that that we won't be able to draw clear trees he has faith that the three kingdoms will remain intact. The irony here is that the actual science is systematiclly taking the tree of life model apart. There are only two possible explanations for our origins and if the universal common ancestor model continues to erode then we will be left with only one plausable explanation, God.

This was fun, I can't wait to get to the other posts.

again, you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, the confusing pattern at the base of the tree is STILL the result of universal common descent, its simply a different mode of descent than is usual: horizontal transfer as opposed to vertical descent

each horizontally transferred element has its own common ancestor

 

[yossarian]

Most of what you have tried to prove is begging the question of proof. So there are maybe 100 mutation in the Zygote as a result of transcription errors in the DNA? Most of these are going to be deleted and certainly don't result in speciation, in fact, in the overwhelming majority of cases it produces no selective advantage at all. A mutation is not the same thing as an inheritable trait since traits can change at random and the population still be in stasis, which is the rule rather then the exception. You may not consider 1 mutation in 10,000 to 100,000 copies a rare occurance, I do. No speciation has occured due to mutations, it simply doesn't happen. The occasional benificial mutation is anecdotal evidence and is hardly a demonstated mechanism of the ubiquitious common ancestory of all creatures.

speciation has been observed mark - so it simply does happen

You like taxonomic relations but you don't seem willing to recognize you're own presumptions with regards to ancestory. Of the millions of animal species discovered only about 45,000 are vertebrates. The other 750,000 are insects, crusttaceans, spiders...etc. Now I am aware that biologists must define and distinquish animals as eating other organisms, move, and have cells that lack walls and secrete extracellular matrix. That is the definition they use to distinquish animals from other living creatures and it is actually an analogy that turned into a wrong demonstration of science. Sir Francis Bacon refered to this human tendancy as idols of the theater:

Idols of the theater - "...there are idol which have crept into men's minds from the various dogmas of peculiar systems of philosophy, and also from the perverted rules of demonstration...for we regard all the systems of philosophy hitherto received or imagined, as so many plays brought out and performed, creating fictitious and theatrical worlds." (Sir Francis Bacon, Novum Organum)

There are many examples of this in modern biology but I will address only two for the moment. Choanoflagellates, or something like them, are said to be a probable ancestor of modern animals. What is this based on? They are simular to sponges in their ribosomal RNA and very distant from other plants and fungi. Apparently that is all the is required to establish a homological relationship and common ancestory. Before the Cambrian explosion these unusual looking creatures are thought to be the precursors of the explosion of living systems which includes the emergance of vertabras. In fact, all the major groups of animals (classes and phyla) appear in the Cambrian and Ordovician periods. What is puzzling about this is that one of the aquired traits are not minor variations in the existing genetic load but an exponential increase in the gene pool that includes the development of skeletons. This is one of the more confusing aspects of homology as conceptual science. This is nothing more then a creation of a fictitious and theatrical world, a wrong demonstration of science and an idol of the theater.

i request that you stop using the terms genetic load, gene pool and mutation until you learn what they actually mean

they may indeed have been minor variations, because many of the genes required for such innovations predate their emergence in the fossil record - the genes were already there mark

Homology is really just an analogy and for some reason these analogies are confused with demonstrative science. Structures are often independent of one another but their simularity are homologous structures. This is presumably inherited from a common ancestor but the truth is that they are nothing more then analogous structures because they are not made from the same materials, or organized in the same way which would indicate they they don't have a common ancestor. This kind of reasoning is highly presumptive and a wrong demonstration of science, in fact, it's an argument of science falsely so called.

you evidently havn't the faintest idea how homology is established

at the genetic level, it simply cannot be analogous, because genes are the mode of transmission for traits

when structures are said to be homologous, this hypothesis can be tested at the genetic and developmental level

When the genetics are mutated there is a net loss of genetic information and the development of skeletons could not be the result of genetic mutations. Here again we have wrong laws of demonstration and an idol of the theater.

until you provide us with a rigourous definition of information, and apply it to mutational mechanisms to show that information neccessarily decreases - then this is just hot air

 

[mark kennedy]

you do not know what you're talking about

there is no refutation mark



again, you haven't the slightest clue what you're talking about, the confusing pattern at the base of the tree is STILL the result of universal common descent, its simply a different mode of descent than is usual: horizontal transfer as opposed to vertical descent

each horizontally transferred element has its own common ancestor

Pedantic satire and all the gene swaping does not write new genetic code. The universal common ancestor model need not be refuted anyway, it's never been demonstrated.