|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: Correspondence - Do We Have an Evolutionary Theory?
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 24. September 2007 13:44
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46f80115ba47f5a9;act=ST;f=14;t=5199;st=60
I see that Martin has now joined Daniel Smith at the thread Alan Fox was stupid enough to introduce on Daniel Smith's behalf. My advice to each of them is -
"Don't let the inmates there off the hook they have offered for themselves to be impaled upon."
It is a beautiful thing to observe from afar. I am only sorry I can't be there with you. I predict Elsberry will soon either ban you both or close the thread.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 24. September 2007, 13:47: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 24. September 2007 15:37
Martin, sorry but I can't post on AtBC right now.
quote:
Uf, it seems you are having hard time here. Your arguments refuting Adam Smith's opinions are very weak I would say.
Martin, I didn't mean to refute Adam Smith! I meant only to call your attention to the mathematical concepts contained in the discipline of statistics that were used to refute the notion of "The Invisible Hand" in economics and that subsequently inspired a similar use and application to speciation.
quote:
1) If you think that Schindewolf was wrong, do you think the same about Gould and Eldredge? You know their conception of Punctuated Equilibria. Do you really think that Schindewolf was as wrong as was Gould?
Unfortunately, I have not studied any of those authors' notions/opinions on this particulr subject, yet.
quote:
Gould 1987:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils ….
That is exactly why we need more "diggers" don't you think?
quote:
2) If Dawkins thinks that dogs somehow support evolution in darwinian way, he should show us some speciation. Dogs are only dogs whatever you do with them. You only work with pre-existing variability which are showed up by breeding.
Without the biochemical evidence (DNA) in the fossil record speciation points will always be debatable among the experts, don't you think?
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 25. September 2007 14:31
quote:
Martin, I didn't mean to refute Adam Smith! I meant only to call your attention to the mathematical concepts contained in the discipline of statistics that were used to refute the notion of "The Invisible Hand" in economics and that subsequently inspired a similar use and application to speciation.
Because speciation is process governed by other forces as natural selection I do not see a point of using math to explain it. It can only obscure the problem. What we need are facts and no mathematical models about how natural selection could have lead to speciation.
quote:
That is exactly why we need more "diggers" don't you think?
When we have digged up 1.000.000 skeletons that are exactly same why do you think that the next one will be the one you are seeking for - that of "transitional" species? You are believing in existence of something that obviously could not be find.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 25. September 2007 15:29
Martin,
quote:
Because speciation is process governed by other forces as natural selection I do not see a point of using math to explain it.
Other forces like what for example? What words would you use to describe, gravity, energy, motion, and other physical processes in lieu of mathematics?
quote:
When we have digged up 1.000.000 skeletons that are exactly same why do you think that the next one will be the one you are seeking for - that of "transitional" species? You are believing in existence of something that obviously could not be find.
That is the point I was making! The more fossilized skeletons or footprints or encased biological entities, etc. we find the better the patterns emerge that allow improved categorizations but even after all of that, without the DNA it all remains a wonderfully contentious puzzle. My hope is that the current studies of extant DNA and epigenetic processes will lead to insights as to their predecessors by bright energetic young investigators who may be reading these blogs.
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 26. September 2007 12:52
quote:
Martin, sorry but I can't post on AtBC right now.
Why is that?
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 26. September 2007 13:48
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin, sorry but I can't post on AtBC right now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is that?
Long dumb story!
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 26. September 2007 16:17
This is typical of Alan Fox. He invades someone elses thread, usually mine, only to engage in idiotic conversation with someone about matters that have nothing to do with the subject of the thread. He has never offered a constructive comment anywhere in his entire life. What is worse, he is a confessed fan of Richard Dawkins, a man who lives in a fantasy world constructed entirely from his own imagination.
As for IF, just because you are not welcome at After The Bar Closes does not make you welcome on a thread dedicated to one of my published papers. Of course if you choose, like Alan Fox, to be nothing but disruptive, there is little I can do except express my disappointment with a management that allows such behavior. There was a time when such activity was not permitted here at "brainstorms." It is unfortunate.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 26. September 2007, 16:19: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 26. September 2007 16:31
In the interest of fairness I recommend the management here introduce a thread specifically dedicated to all the denizens of After The Bar Closes and Pharyngula where they are encouraged to vent their atheist inspired, purposeless spleens to their precious little heart's content. After all that is all that they do on their home blogs as any fool can see. Why deny them that opportunity here?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 27. September 2007 04:59
quote:
quote:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin, sorry but I can't post on AtBC right now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is that?
Long dumb story!
If you want to post there and are blocked, I could lobby for your reinstatement. PM me if you wish to pursue the matter.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 27. September 2007 07:55
quote:
If you want to post there and are blocked, I could lobby for your reinstatement. PM me if you wish to pursue the matter.
Everything is just fine, thanks!
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 27. September 2007 12:06
quote:
What is worse, he is a confessed fan of Richard Dawkins, a man who lives in a fantasy world constructed entirely from his own imagination.
That's right. But his fantasies about "selfish gene" seems to be so attractive to some people, that they consider such fantasies as real science.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 27. September 2007 14:53
quote:
That's right. But his fantasies about "selfish gene" seems to be so attractive to some people, that they consider such fantasies as real science.
It seemed to me that he used "selfish gene" in the metaphorical sense so as to avoid the mathematical aspects {statistics} for the benefit of the general readership who are uncomfortable with that facet of science.
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 27. September 2007 15:17
quote:
quote:That's right. But his fantasies about "selfish gene" seems to be so attractive to some people, that they consider such fantasies as real science.
It seemed to me that he used "selfish gene" in the metaphorical sense so as to avoid the mathematical aspects {statistics} for the benefit of the general readership who are uncomfortable with that facet of science.
As a point of information, Dawkins is the first to admit that mathematics is not his strong point. But the "selfish" gene concept was developed to counter the opposing "group selection" theories. I doubt Dawkins intended to give the impression he was being metaphorical, nor have I heard anyone else suggesting this interesting interpretation.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 27. September 2007 18:40
Richard Dawkins abandoned science long ago to attack religion. Now he is going after politics. Each of his books is more unbelievable than its predecessor. No rational observer can possibly grant him any credibility whatsoever. He has become a caricature of himself. My personal belief is that he is mentally unbalanced and progressively so. It is sad. I think he may come to an unhappy end and soon.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 28. September 2007, 05:17: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic