Teaching Evolution to Evolutionists

[Papias]

Montalban wrote:

Cite me a question I've not answered

Wow, Montalban. Really? You go through this whole thread not answering stuff. Here are just a few examples:
(and I've always used the quote function)


Here is my post #174 on this thread - you ignored it.

********************************
Montalban, you ignored all but one of the subtopics.

So we've back to the topics listed:

A. back in post #90, and in Mallon's post #113 above, we showed that independant criteria are used, so natural selection isn't a tautology. You mispresenting natural selection when you ignore half of the situation, as shown by your statements like "that which survives survives" or "all knives are knives".

I guess your single response fits best to subtopic A.

Montalban wrote:

The problem with that is you're confusing a prediction with the outcome.

​

There is no confusion - they are both relevant to the actual research, just as they are in all other branches of science.

I could 'predict' that a taller person is more fit, and associate advatnages that a tall person would have. However a random circumstance could happen where being tall was a disadvantage.
​

Of course - that's why the environment is so important. Biology not only recognizes that, but tries to emphasize it to creationists who ignore it.

In the end one can only know that which survived was fit to survive.
​

You seem to not understand the important role of statistics and probabilities in science. Your statement above is like saying that probability is a tautology because after a die roll we can only say that "what was rolled was rolled".

Your continued use of "all or nothing" red herrings is like disagreeing that probability is real, and whenever someone points out the predictive use of probabilities, saying that "that doesn't matter because we could still roll a 4". Your responses simply aren't relevant.


B. Your assertion is simply a repetition of Gish's use of the same argument in his book, which was shown to be a PRATT then, it's no different now.

Being that Montalban has refused to answer this several times, perhaps we can tentatively conclude that he is aware that his whole argument is a PRATT from Gish.


C. Shernren showed in post #106 that even using Montalban's own definition of what isn't a tautology, natural selection isn't a tautology.

Tentatively resolved - Montalban's previous response was little more to say "Shernren was wrong". Shernren also subseqent posts to help explain this to Montalban.


D. It's worth pointing out that your refusal to see cause and effect can be applied to any science, rendering every science a tautology. For instance, medicine is a tautology because the drug that works best works best. Physics is a tautology because a force that attracts is a force that attracts. Rocket science is a tautology because the rocket nozzle that produces the most force is the rocket nozzle that produces the most force. Your entire argument (as with Gish's original argument) is nothing more than a word game followed by plugging one's ears and humming when the correct answer is explained.

Montalban responded that this didn't matter since these others aren't "foundational" to their fields. I don't see what Montalban is saying here - there is more to biology than natural selection, and treatment and forces are certainly central to medicine and physics. I don't see why Montalban feels justified in using a double standard across fields.


Being that Montalban has refused to answer this several times, perhaps we can tentatively conclude thatMontalban understands this explanation?


E. You also showed that the quote you found about the Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) seems to contradict the other one.

Being that Montalban has refused to answer this perhaps we can tentatively conclude that he is agrees that the EOC statement seems to be inconsistent and demonstrably false on matters of fact?
F. Montalban wrote:

How does natural selection select in any manner like a breeder?
​

Because it causes some to reproduce, and others not to, based on independent traits that exist before the selection. In fact, in the case of natural selection, the selection process is more understandable, not less, because it a function of the changing environment.

I hope you see that understanding the selector isn't even needed (as you can imagine if you had an inscrutable human breeder, who could still breed different changes without us being able to know what she was aiming for). In either case you can see the selector as a black box - the initial population goes in, some are selected according to criteria, and an altered population results. Over time, the animals change radically in both cases.
​

Being that Montalban has refused to answer this perhaps we can tentatively conclude that he understands this now?


Have a good day-

Papias
​

*******************************

Then, just now, you ignored practically all of post 251 above, offering only a non-answer to the mention of pi, geology and a flat earth (discussed more below), and failing to even acknowledge that TE answers your concern that the fall is not included (add as G?). That sounded like you thought it was a significant objection to you, and if it is, then you'd think solving it would be something you'd at least mention.

So yes, there are tons of examples of you not answering questions.

To get back to the few that you did answer:

Does the Bible say "This is the law of maths", or is this simply what people did?

Why do you ask what it says? I assume you read it yourself. Here it is:

He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.

If we are going to read this exactly literally, then it says it was circular, and that the circumference /diameter was 3. Or, we could deviate from a strict literal reading, and then there is no problem.

Ignoring the figures of speech here I'll condemn them as being totally unscientific because we know the sun doesn't actually rise

Except they aren't all just figures of speech of the sun rising or setting. Here are some of them:

From Mallon's earlier post:
Bible tells us that the earth is flat like a piece of clay stamped under a seal (Job 38:13-14), that it has edges as only a flat plane would (Job 38:13-14,.Psa 19:4), that it is a circular disk (Isa 40:22), and that its entire surface can be seen from a high tree (Dan 4:10-11) or mountain (Matt 4:8), which is impossible for a sphere, but possible for a flat disk. Taken literally, as the YECs insist we do, any one of these passages shows a flat earth. Taken together, they are even more clear.

Miracles seem to be irrational, beyond sense.

You wrote that in response to my observation that all of geology agrees on how the earth formed (through accretion after the sun was formed in the solar nebula), which contradicts the genesis story (if read literally) where the sun is formed after the earth. Since you didn't really answer it, I'll have to ask again - do you say that the earth didn't form after the sun?

I take it you don't believe in God, who exists beyond natural laws?

Why must creationists always resort to the "Christianier than thou approach"? Montalban, questioning my Christianity is a violation of site rules. You can be reported for that.

Papias

 

[Ethan Osgoode]

I am still thinking aloud over this but given recent massive errors made by Evolutionists regarding Evolution I thought I'd point to a few lessons.

• One is that Darwin used the term "Survival of the Fittest" and that he actually preferred this as a term to describe his theory.
  
  Whether he coined the term or not is irrelevant

• Two is that the term "Survival of the Fittest" is a tautology, in that it means 'That which survives survives".

Yes, and another to consider is that Darwin was one of the biggest advocates of the inheritance of acquired characters. He even developed a theory to explain it, called Pangenesis. A good lesson in evolution history would be beneficial to evolutionists. They can learn all about their roles in eugenics and other fake sciences.

 

[sfs]

Yes, and another to consider is that Darwin was one of the biggest advocates of the inheritance of acquired characters. He even developed a theory to explain it, called Pangenesis.

How is that a "recent massive error by evolutionists"? Yes, Darwin got some things very wrong -- that's well known. What does that have to do with anything?

A good lesson in evolution history would be beneficial to evolutionists. They can learn all about their roles in eugenics and other fake sciences.

What makes you think we don't already know?

 

[Ethan Osgoode]

How is that a "recent massive error by evolutionists"? Yes, Darwin got some things very wrong -- that's well known. What does that have to do with anything?

Because countless evolutionists today (that's recent) say
that Darwin did not believe in the inheritance of acquired
characters. They need to be educated about this.

 

[Mallon]

Because countless evolutionists today (that's recent) say
that Darwin did not believe in the inheritance of acquired
characters. They need to be educated about this.

Like who?

 

[Ethan Osgoode]

Like who?

For example, the St Louis Zoo's "Life Science Lesson plans" for mddle schools.

"Upon completion of this activity, students will be... exposed to Natural Selection and an earlier alternate theory -- Acquired Inheritance. Both of these theories are founded on the belief that animal species change over time and that offspring inherit traits from their parents. The two theories differ on how animals change and what traits offspring inherit from their parents... Charles Darwin introduced Natural Selection to the scientific community. He said that organisms could neither willfully change themselves nor pass those changes on to their offspring.



...a long time ago scientists noticed that the earth’s organisms had changed over time. They started wondering how this could have happened. Two main theories developed—the theory of Acquired Characteristics and Natural Selection...


Darwin said that the fact that an individual changes something about its body or its behavior during its lifetime doesn’t mean that change can or will be passed on to their offspring. Darwin said that organisms only pass down the traits that they themselves were born with.

Why do so many scientists believe Darwin was right?... [because] Physical injuries are not passed on to children..."​

 

[Papias]

Ethan wrote:

They need to be educated about this.

Perhaps a little context is useful. In Darwin's day, Larmarckian inheritance was a strong contender, and I don't know of any scientists that denied it completely. Darwin, by proposing a new mechanism and saying that it was a much bigger factor than Larmarckian inheritance was espousing a view that radically moved away from something (Larmarckian evolution) that was "obviously true" to many in the field.

In that context, yes, of course Darwin retained a shred of Larmarckianism - how could he not? But, a ton of further work showed us that the direction he pushed the debate (toward NS and away from Larmarckian evolution) was correct.

In fact, even today, biologist acknowledge that there is a tiny shred of Larmarckian evolution due to epigenetics.

I guess I don't see a big scandalous problem, as you do. After all, if they need to be taught anything, it is the above context, and even that is a finer point of history, not terribly relevant to understanding biology, where understanding NS gets one 90+% of the way to understanding it.

Besides, casting detail that is barely relevant if relevant at all in a way that makes it sound like a conspiracy isn't going to help anyone.

Papias

 

[Ethan Osgoode]

In that context, yes, of course Darwin retained a shred of Larmarckianism

Thomas Hunt Morgan, Critique of the Theory of Evolution, 1919, pg. 32:

"Lamarck's name is always associated with the application of the theory of the inheritance of acquired characters. Darwin fully endorsed this view and made use of it as an explanation in all of his writings about animals."

I guess I don't see a big scandalous problem

Do you agree with this?

"Darwin said that the fact that an individual changes something about its body or its behavior during its lifetime doesn’t mean that change can or will be passed on to their offspring. Darwin said that organisms only pass down the traits that they themselves were born with."

 

[Papias]

Ethan wrote:

Thomas Hunt Morgan, Critique of the Theory of Evolution, 1919, pg. 32:

While Thomas Hunt Morgan did write that, I wonder what sources he was basing it on? Having read much of the Origin of Species (have you?), and other writings by Darwin (his journal with his thoughts about whether to get married or not is often funny), Morgan's description is clearly a bit exaggerated.

So, I wonder if we are talking more here about an or misunderstanding regarding Morgan than of Darwin's view? Maybe find actual descriptions by Darwin himself of his view to see what it is, as opposed to what someone else said it was? Mainly, if you are to assert that Darwin included a Larmarckian explanation in *all* his descriptions of animals, you've got a big task ahead of you - because Darwin wrote an awful lot, and I don't remember a larmarckian explanation being present in all of it, or even in most of it.

It's also worth pointing out that Darwin's Pangenesis idea of gemmules was not mainly a defense of Larmarckianism, but rather simply including a little larmarckianism as of the many factors that may affect the gemmules, of which parent's inherited factors are a major part. There is no dispute among biologists today that Darwin's gemmule idea was just plain wrong. That's why it was fixed, replaced with modern genetics.

In fact, as we all know, in supplanting an idea, it is useful to point out the incorrect parts, and then present the new theory that fixes them. That's exactly what Thomas Hunt Morgan is doing. The quote you quoted is where he is pointing out what is wrong with Darwin's Pangenesis idea. He may have exaggerated the lamarckian role as a result (that's the point he was trying to show), and by taking that part out of the larger flow of history, it looks like Darwin's (wrong) pangenesis view was a reason why Darwin was mainly Larmarckian, which he was not - he was mainly pushing against larmarckianism.

It looks like this case is like the game of telephone. We start with Darwin's Gemmule idea, which includes a little lamarckianism, then by history, that view is slightly amplified (by around 1900), then Morgan exaggerates it a bit to help show the constrast with his discovery of genetic mechanisms, then we take that one part out of it's historical context, thus distorting it a bit more. After a series of small distortions like this, we end up with the mistaken view that Darwin championed Larmarckianism, which instead he opposed in his day.

For a middle school lesson, it is correct to show that Darwin championed Natural Selection in opposition to Larmarckianism - because that's what really happened.

Do you agree with this?

While I agree that the word "only" in it is technically incorrect, depending on what level book it is, perhaps it is OK. You showed yourself that this is for a middle school level, where the nuanced history would be inappropriate. As I described earlier, it seems to be a decent approximation of a slightly more nuanced view. In a basic level book, that's OK (neccessary, in fact). In a graduate level textbook, that's more of a problem.

For instance, in a basic book of geography and plate tectonics, it could read "Canada, the United States, and Mexico are on the North American plate, while the countries of Asia are on the Eurasian Plate." At a basic level, that's OK. Technically, there are parts of the united states that are on other small plates, and part of Japan is on the North American plate - so that basic statement is technically not exactly correct. But those little plates aren't appropriate to a very basic level, and so leaving them out is not terrible.

We agree that Darwin retained at least some Larmarckianism. I hope you understand that there is no problem with Darwin sometimes being wrong. That's the beauty of science, it can remove error and correct it. Even Einstein was wrong on some things - for instance, he completely rejected QM (with his famous "dice" quote) - yet he was just plain wrong about that, QM has been confirmed over and over.

Papias

 

[Ethan Osgoode]

Having read much of the Origin of Species (have you?),

Origin of Species, pg 11:

"I find in the domestic duck that the bones of the wing weigh less and the bones of the leg more, in proportion to the whole skeleton, than do the same bones in the wild-duck; and I presume that this change may be safely attributed to the domestic duck flying much less, and walking more, than its wild parent. The great and inherited development of the udders in cows and goats in countries where they are habitually milked, in comparison with the state of these organs in other countries, is another instance of the effect of use. Not a single domestic animal can be named which has not in some country drooping ears; and the view suggested by some authors, that the drooping is due to the disuse of the muscles of the ear, from the animals not being much alarmed by danger, seems probable."

 

[Papias]

Ethan Quoted:

....duck flying much less, and walking more, than its wild parent........

Yes, as mentioned before, no one, at a studied and in-depth level, denies that Darwin retained a shred of Larmarckianism. (as we saw when we discussed gemmules).

The fact that this larmarckianism is a small part of his view is shown in your example, in fact. As you probably know from the many instances of quote-mining of Darwin done by creationists (the eye quote is a good example, as you probably know), meticulous writers (especially in the 1800's) like Darwin often went to great pains to lay out all the views in the area they were discussing, before emphasizing their own view. I'm not calling your quote a quote mine - it isn't that at all. In fact, it's one of the best examples I could find where Darwin supports some Larmarckianism (aside from the stuff related to gemmules).

However, it is just as described as his method of meticulous writing. It is a couple paragraphs laying out all the background, before he launches into pages and pages extolling the supreme role of selection, not larmarckian acquision, for not just a couple paragraphs, but pages and pages! For instance, he finishes laying out this background of other ideas by page 18 (concluding that the whole matter is "vague" - hardly a powerful endorsement of Larmarckianism), then goes on to talk about pigeons up to page 28, then spends the rest of the Ch1. pages up to 44 extolling the central role of selection. So that's your paragraph admitting that he can't prove that Larmarckianism has no role (he's very gentlemanly, so his gentle admission of this sounds like an endorsement, like most mid-1800 writers), compared to over a dozen pages (and really, if you read on, most of the rest of his nearly 500 page book), showing that selection is dominant - that's why he's famous, and did so much to establish biology as an incredibly powerful science.

For instance, a while after your quoted section, when he gets to his main point of focusing on selection, he writes:


We can not suppose that all the breeds were suddenly produced as perfect and as useful as we now see them; indeed, in many cases, we know that this has not been their history. The key is man's power of accumulative selection: nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him. In this sense he may be said to have made for himself useful breeds.

The great power of this principle of selection is not hypothetical. ......(pg. 30)

Thanks for pointing out to everyone that Darwin was not able to completely reject all Larmarckianism. In his day, his rejection of Larmarckianism as having a central role was huge. In our fast paced world, where we live on sound bites and snappy comebacks, it's often hard for us to listen to those in the slower, gentlemanly 1800s and understand what they are saying, without first slowing down ourselves.

As I mentioned before, for a middle school lesson, it is correct to show that Darwin championed Natural Selection in opposition to Larmarckianism - because that's what really happened.

Papias

 

[shernren]

Yes, Darwin had a Lamarckian view of variation and inheritance (see Ch. 5 of Origin); nevertheless, he believed that species were formed by gradual accumulation through natural selection of inherited characteristics (whether these characteristics were produced by Lamarckian means or otherwise). As he explains himself throughout the Origin of Species, he simply had no better proposal for the source of variation; Mendelian genetics would come fifty years later.

 

[Papias]

Oh, another illustrative statement showing that Darwin rejected Larmarckian evolution as the main route of change comes in Darwin's letter in 1844 to his friend Mr. Hooker, where he first tells someone of his idea:

Heaven forfend me from Lamarck's nonsense of a “tendency to progression” “adaptations from the slow willing of animals” ...—but the conclusions I am led to are not widely different from his—though the means of change are wholly so— I think I have found out (here's presumption!) the simple way by which species become exquisitely adapted to various ends.

Papias