universal values?

[Knotted]

I'm not going to try and work out what your point was. Here's an exercise - make your own argument. Don't just string together disparate bits of rhetoric and hope that I can make sense of it for you. Do you really want me to make your argument for you? Am I supposed to argue with myself? I'm not that crazy.

 

[Knotted]

Anyway, you never answered my question. How many (or what proportion) of transitional forms need to be found in the fossil record before "Darwinism" is OK in your opinion?

 

[dilute micro]

I'm not going to try and work out what your point was. Here's an exercise - make your own argument. Don't just string together disparate bits of rhetoric and hope that I can make sense of it for you. Do you really want me to make your argument for you? Am I supposed to argue with myself? I'm not that crazy.

As I showed you in my last post you don't have a handle on this or even who is saying what...

and yet you still have a lot of confidence.

How crazy you are isn't a concern of mine.

 

[dilute micro]

Anyway, you never answered my question. How many (or what proportion) of transitional forms need to be found in the fossil record before "Darwinism" is OK in your opinion?

I'm not a paleontologist so I'll leave it up to them provided they reveal to total number of "fully formed" species found.

 

[Knotted]

So you haven't got any criteria with which to judge "Darwinism". You just decided to waste our time by talking about the relative lack of transitional forms.

 

[dilute micro]

So you haven't got any criteria with which to judge "Darwinism". You just decided to waste our time by talking about the relative lack of transitional forms.

How is talking about the lack of transitional forms a waste of time? It hasn't been for me or for the people I've quoted. You may think of it as wasting time but then you've shown in this thread you don't have a good understanding of the subject - and you can't follow the conversation like when you invented that I had said something I didn't (stasis "explaining" few transitionals).

But yeah, if you haven't noticed much of this has been a review of darwinism.

 

[Knotted]

What does "lack of transitional forms" mean? That there are no transitional forms? Or that there aren't "enough"? If the latter what would be "enough"?

 

[dilute micro]

What does "lack of transitional forms" mean? That there are no transitional forms? Or that there aren't "enough"? If the latter what would be "enough"?

It means a whole lot less than would be predicted by darwinian gradualism. Why don't you email Raup or Eldredge and ask what 'enough' would tally to. As for now it's understood that there aren't 'enough'.

 

[Santino]

As for now it's understood that there aren't 'enough'.

I can't get my head around these technical details.

 

[Knotted]

Some of the best critiques of darwinism come from creationists.

OK I've done my duty. I've gone to the organ grinder and read this essay. It's rubbish. Almost every line is a misconception. Basically the argument goes as follows:

1) Darwin predicted that evolution required numerous slight changes and hence many intermediate forms.
2) The fossil record must have recorded all those forms
3) Where are they then?
4) What about stasis, didn't Gould say that it was an example of non gradual evolution?

1, 2 & 3 is a basic creationist argument. The error is obviously step 2). Then we have this point about stasis tagged on. Well that's simple enough. Gould was talking about phyletic gradualism over a geological timescale not just any old gradual change. But in any case stasis is super gradual ie. it's evolution come to a near halt. Yes it's problematic to explain, but it doesn't say anything about evolution by natural selection. So what's the point? Oh yes, scientists have arguments about the details of their theories. That must mean that a scientific paradigm is about to collapse. Well it didn't did it?

This is really weak stuff.

 

[Knotted]

It means a whole lot less than would be predicted by darwinian gradualism. Why don't you email Raup or Eldredge and ask what 'enough' would tally to. As for now it's understood that there aren't 'enough'.

Phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are both darwinian gradualist theories.

 

[Knotted]

Here's Bruce Lieberman and Niles Eldredge's overview of punctuated equilibrium on Scholarpedia. In particular:

As is often typical of any new idea, punctuated equilibria sparked considerable discussion and generated significant controversy. One aspect of disagreement was the disconnect between what biologists and paleontologists meant by “rapid change.” To a paleontologist, the 5,000 to 50,000 years typical for a speciation event would seem incredibly rapid, especially due to the limits of resolution in the fossil record and in the face of millions of years of otherwise morphological stability. By contrast, to a biologist, the 5,000 to 50,000 years that Eldredge and Gould consigned to speciation events seemed like a tremendous stretch of time: more than long enough to accommodate “gradual evolutionary divergence.” Because of the disconnect between what “rapid” meant to biologists and paleontologists, some biologists were inclined to view punctuated equilibria as necessitating effectively instantaneous evolutionary change (which was incorrect). Also, and in a related vein, Eldredge and Gould (1972) and Gould and Eldredge (1977) were careful to stipulate that only relatively small morphological differences separated closely related species, and in particular that different species were not separated by unbridgeable evolutionary gaps; however, there was also confusion and controversy on this point as well.

(Of course dm will just say that Eldredge and Lieberman were just trying to appease the Darwinist man in the above.)

To refute creationist quote mining of Gould or other punctuationists contrasting gradualism to punctuationism all that is required is to ask, "gradual over what timescale?"

The creationist spiel on stasis isn't even coherent on its own terms. It's just an attempt to make people as confused as they are.

Intelligent design arguments do not take the form of a scientific argument, but rather celebrity gossip. They focus on celebrity evolutionists like Gould and Dawkins and their little squabbles. They do not examine the theories, but just the gossip surrounding those theories. This is why dm is completely stumped when I ask him how many transitional forms must exist before Darwinism is alright. He can't reply by reference to the theory, but only to gossip about the theory. Well Eldredge seems to say, Raup seems to say....

 

[dilute micro]

OK I've done my duty. I've gone to the organ grinder and read this essay. It's rubbish. Almost every line is a misconception. Basically the argument goes as follows:

1) Darwin predicted that evolution required numerous slight changes and hence many intermediate forms.
2) The fossil record must have recorded all those forms
3) Where are they then?
4) What about stasis, didn't Gould say that it was an example of non gradual evolution?

1, 2 & 3 is a basic creationist argument. The error is obviously step 2). Then we have this point about stasis tagged on. Well that's simple enough. Gould was talking about phyletic gradualism over a geological timescale not just any old gradual change. But in any case stasis is super gradual ie. it's evolution come to a near halt. Yes it's problematic to explain, but it doesn't say anything about evolution by natural selection. So what's the point? Oh yes, scientists have arguments about the details of their theories. That must mean that a scientific paradigm is about to collapse. Well it didn't did it?

This is really weak stuff.

lol you're forgetting the part where non-creationists say the same things and ask the same questions.

 

[Knotted]

If they are saying the same thing then they are also talking drivel. Drivel is drivel regardless of who speaks it.

However, I do not have much faith in your ability to tell whether it really is the same thing or not.

 

[dilute micro]

Phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium are both darwinian gradualist theories.

Using a trick to try to make pe darwinistic is only a trick. I don't think you understand it. You run to talkorigins - read their assurances - and run back repeating what you've heard. Anybody can do that.

 

[Knotted]

Come on. I've really indulged you. The least you can do is site me something by a non-creationist that says the same thing.

 

[Knotted]

Using a trick to try to make pe darwinistic is only a trick. I don't think you understand it. You run to talkorigins - read their assurances - and run back repeating what you've heard. Anybody can do that.

I haven't used talk.origins at all. I recommended an article on it to revol68. I didn't use it. You're very dishonest.

 

[dilute micro]

If they are saying the same thing then they are also talking drivel. Drivel is drivel regardless of who speaks it.

However, I do not have much faith in your ability to tell whether it really is the same thing or not.

Funny, if a creationist criticizes darwinism it's wrong - if a darwinist criticizes darwinism it's wrong.

 

[Knotted]

Funny, if a creationist criticizes darwinism it's wrong - if a darwinist criticizes darwinism it's wrong.

Funny - you can't read.

 

[dilute micro]

I haven't used talk.origins at all. I recommended an article on it to revol68. I didn't use it. You're very dishonest.

How would you know what's there?

 

[Knotted]

Because I've read it before and found it useful.

 

[Knotted]

If you notice I've been refering constantly to articles and papers by leading evolutionists involved - Gould, Eldredge, Mayr.

 

[Knotted]

If you notice you've been refering to idiotic creationist websites. No big deal. But you're clearly embarressed about it.

 

[Knotted]

Bit of projection going on here...

 

[dilute micro]

Here's Bruce Lieberman and Niles Eldredge's overview of punctuated equilibrium on Scholarpedia. In particular:

to a biologist, the 5,000 to 50,000 years that Eldredge and Gould consigned to speciation events seemed like a tremendous stretch of time:

(Of course dm will just say that Eldredge and Lieberman were just trying to appease the Darwinist man in the above.)

To refute creationist quote mining of Gould or other punctuationists contrasting gradualism to punctuationism all that is required is to ask, "gradual over what timescale?"

The creationist spiel on stasis isn't even coherent on its own terms. It's just an attempt to make people as confused as they are.

Intelligent design arguments do not take the form of a scientific argument, but rather celebrity gossip. They focus on celebrity evolutionists like Gould and Dawkins and their little squabbles. They do not examine the theories, but just the gossip surrounding those theories. This is why dm is completely stumped when I ask him how many transitional forms must exist before Darwinism is alright. He can't reply by reference to the theory, but only to gossip about the theory. Well Eldredge seems to say, Raup seems to say....

What???

I have never met a biologist that thought 5 thousand or 50 thousand years was a lot of time in terms of evolution.

(lack of transitionals) - that's what they said. They didn't "seem" to say it. You're inventing another reality for yourself and your beliefs knotted.

 

[Knotted]

What???

I have never met a biologist that thought 5 thousand or 50 thousand years was a lot of time in terms of evolution.

Haven't you? Well go out and meet some biologists then.

(lack of transitionals) - that's what they said. They didn't "seem" to say it. You're inventing another reality for yourself and your beliefs knotted.

Read carefully. What conclusion did they draw from this "lack of transitionals". You won't find it. Because that would require reading the whole article and you only have the bits some creationist has quote mined.

 

[dilute micro]

If you notice you've been refering to idiotic creationist websites. No big deal. But you're clearly embarressed about it.

I linked quotes from a creationist site. I'd have done the same from a darwinist site had they came up on google.

How is that "embarrassing"?

 

[dilute micro]

Haven't you? Well go out and meet some biologists then.



Read carefully. What conclusion did they draw from this "lack of transitionals". You won't find it. Because that would require reading the whole article and you only have the bits some creationist has quote mined.

I've met lots of biologists.

"read carefully" -lol, great advice coming from you knotted. fyi, I showed Gould could say one thing to one group of people and say the opposite to others. So yeah, read carefully knotted.

 

[Knotted]

From The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins:

A thought of the famous American evqlutionist G. Ledyard Stebbins
is illuminating at this point. He isn't specifically concerned with jerky
evolution, but is just seeking to dramatize the speed with which
evolutionary change can happen, when seen against the timescale of
available geological time. He imagines a species of animal, of about the
size of a mouse. He then supposes that natural selection starts to
favour an increase in body size, but only very very slightly. Perhaps
larger males enjoy a slight advantage in the competition for females. At
any time, males of average size are slightly less successful than males
that are a tiny bit bigger than average. Stebbins put an exact figure on
the mathematical advantage enjoyed by larger individuals in his hypothetical
example. He set it at a value so very very tiny that it
wouldn't be measurable by human observers. And the rate of evolutionary
change that it brings about is consequently so slow that it
wouldn't be noticed during an ordinary human lifetime. As far as the
scientist studying evolution on the ground is concerned, then, these
animals are not evolving at all. Nevertheless they are evolving, very
slowly at a rate given by Stebbins's mathematical assumption, and,
even at this slow rate, they would eventually reach the size of
elephants. How long would this take? Obviously a long time by human
standards, but human standards aren't relevant. We are talking about
geological time. Stebbins calculates that at his assumed very slow rate
of evolution, it would take about 12,000 generations for the animals to
evolve from an average weight of 40 grams (mouse size) to an average
weight of over 6,000,000 grams (elephant size). Assuming a generationtime
of 5 years, which is longer than that of a mouse but shorter than
that of an elephant, 12,000 generations would occupy about 60,000
years. 60,000 years is too short to be measured by ordinary geological
methods of dating the fossil record. As Stebbins says, 'The origin of a
new kind of animal in 100,000 years or less is regarded by paleontologists
as "sudden" or "instantaneous".'

Considering that Gould and Eldredge were talking about "relatively small morphological differences separated closely related species" then 60,000 years for the evolution of an elephant sized creature from a mouse sized creature rather major in comparison. But either way it's a geological blink of the eye.

 

[Knotted]

"read carefully" -lol, great advice coming from you knotted. fyi, I showed Gould could say one thing to one group of people and say the opposite to others. So yeah, read carefully knotted.

No you didn't.