Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Whale Evolution

Expand Messages
  • ochs_matt
    If ? Exactly. You said if , but we do not. We do not need to, solid facts speak for themselves. ... Bible ... Clare. ... Colleges constantly say that Darwin
    Message 1 of 24 , Oct 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      "If"? Exactly. You said "if", but we do not. We do not need to,
      solid facts speak for themselves.

      --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "Laurie Appleton" <lappleto@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > Hi ochs,
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      > From: ochs_matt
      > To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
      > Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 7:42 AM
      > Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Whale Evolution
      >
      >
      > Anytime someone states, "The Bible says...the Bible says...the
      Bible
      > says...", is a lost cause Susan. Don't concern yourself over
      Clare.
      >
      >
      > LA> But doubtless is is quite acceptable by you if lecturers in
      Colleges constantly say that "Darwin says. . . Darwin says. . . .
      Darwin says! In other words Darwin's book is some sort of holy
      writ! No wonder a leading evolutionist calls it "religion without
      revelation"!
      >
      >
      >
      > Laurie.
      >
      > "From my earliest training as a scientist, I was strongly
      brainwashed
      > to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of
      deliberate
      > creation. That notion has had to be painfully shed."
      > (Chandra Wickramasinghe, noted ex atheistic scientist, 1981)
      > .
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
      > Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest |
      Switch format to Traditional
      > Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
      Recent Activity
      > a.. 2New Members
      > b.. 1New Links
      > c.. 1New Files
      > Visit Your Group
      > Yahoo! News
      > Science News
      >
      > Get the latest
      >
      > scientific news.
      >
      > New web site?
      > Drive traffic now.
      >
      > Get your business
      >
      > on Yahoo! search.
      >
      > Y! GeoCities
      > Free Blogging
      >
      > Share your views
      >
      > with the world.
      > .
      >
      >
      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      >
    • Clare Wilson Parr
      ... Laurie, it s okey-dokey so long as those who post to OriginsTalk write Darwin says . . . .! ... Darwin says. . . .! ... Darwin says. . . .! What s really
      Message 2 of 24 , Oct 1, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On 10/1/2006, Laurie Appleton wrote:

        >Anytime someone states, "The Bible says...
        >the Bible says...the Bible says...", is a
        >lost cause Susan. Don't concern yourself
        >over Clare.
        >
        > LA> But doubtless is is quite acceptable
        >by you if lecturers in Colleges constantly
        >say that "Darwin says. . . Darwin says.
        >. . . Darwin says! In other words Darwin's
        >book is some sort of holy writ! No wonder a
        >leading evolutionist calls it "religion
        >without revelation"!

        Laurie, it's okey-dokey so long as those
        who post to OriginsTalk write Darwin says .
        . . .! ... Darwin says. . . .! ... Darwin
        says. . . .!

        What's really amusing about my having been
        accused of stating the "The Bible says . . .
        . is that I have on ONE occasion quoted
        from the Bible, in response to a DARWINIST
        who had posted Genesis 1 quotes. Oddly
        enough!

        Darwinists are free to quote the Bible to
        corroborate their materialist "matter in
        motion" / "molecules to man" folktale,
        but creationists dare not "bring forth" a
        counter-argument. And if they should,
        why, they're "lost causes!" That's
        Darwinist "logic" for you....

        Clare
        -----
      • ochs_matt
        You finally got one thing right. It is amusing. You can read my message previous to this one, it works for both of you. Speaking of your folk tales, where was
        Message 3 of 24 , Oct 1, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          You finally got one thing right. It is amusing. You can read my
          message previous to this one, it works for both of you. Speaking of
          your folk tales, where was your invivible man in the sky when the
          Aztecs slaughterd 80,000 of their own innocent citizens? The excuse
          was to celebrate the opening of a new temple. He must be an absentee
          landlord or is non-existent. It is the latter.


          --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Clare Wilson Parr <turandot@...>
          wrote:
          >
          > On 10/1/2006, Laurie Appleton wrote:
          >
          > >Anytime someone states, "The Bible says...
          > >the Bible says...the Bible says...", is a
          > >lost cause Susan. Don't concern yourself
          > >over Clare.
          > >
          > > LA> But doubtless is is quite acceptable
          > >by you if lecturers in Colleges constantly
          > >say that "Darwin says. . . Darwin says.
          > >. . . Darwin says! In other words Darwin's
          > >book is some sort of holy writ! No wonder a
          > >leading evolutionist calls it "religion
          > >without revelation"!
          >
          > Laurie, it's okey-dokey so long as those
          > who post to OriginsTalk write Darwin says .
          > . . .! ... Darwin says. . . .! ... Darwin
          > says. . . .!
          >
          > What's really amusing about my having been
          > accused of stating the "The Bible says . . .
          > . is that I have on ONE occasion quoted
          > from the Bible, in response to a DARWINIST
          > who had posted Genesis 1 quotes. Oddly
          > enough!
          >
          > Darwinists are free to quote the Bible to
          > corroborate their materialist "matter in
          > motion" / "molecules to man" folktale,
          > but creationists dare not "bring forth" a
          > counter-argument. And if they should,
          > why, they're "lost causes!" That's
          > Darwinist "logic" for you....
          >
          > Clare
          > -----
          >
        • Laurie Appleton
          Hi ochs, ... From: ochs_matt To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 2:27 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Whale Evolution You finally got
          Message 4 of 24 , Oct 2, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi ochs,
            ----- Original Message -----
            From: ochs_matt
            To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Monday, October 02, 2006 2:27 AM
            Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Whale Evolution


            You finally got one thing right. It is amusing. You can read my
            message previous to this one, it works for both of you. Speaking of
            your folk tales, where was your invivible man in the sky when the
            Aztecs slaughterd 80,000 of their own innocent citizens? The excuse
            was to celebrate the opening of a new temple. He must be an absentee
            landlord or is non-existent. It is the latter.


            LA> If you think 80,000 Aztecs slaughtered was appalling, what did you think about the 60 million or so that were murdered in the Soviet Union in the last hundred years. You did know that the official religion of the Soviet was ATHEISM for all that time, didn't you? You also understand, I expect. that all atheistist are necessarily evolutionists of one sort or another too, didn't you?

            LA> The "invisible main in the sky" has been "pensioned" off by the likes of the Aztecs AND the atheists of course and noted evolutionists have insisted that even if there is a God, He had NOTHING to do with the "origin of species" even if they admit to being stuck on the question of the origin of life itself as such!

            LA> So just what are you trying to prove? Could it be that you are a person who is still in a position like that noted Journalist , Lee Strobel, at the time when he was still an atheist and wrote about some Christians that;
            ----------
            Why couldn't these people get their heads out of the sand and admit
            the obvious: science had put their God out of a job! White-coated scientists of the modern world had trumped the black-robed priests of
            medieval times. Darwin's theory of evolution -- no, the absolute FACT of
            evolution -- meant that there is no universal morality decreed by a
            deity, only culturally conditioned values that vary from place to place
            and situation to situation.

            (The Case for a Creator, Lee Strobel, 2004, p.16)
            ====================

            Laurie.

            "No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen." (Niles Eldredge, famous evolutionist, 1995)


            Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
            Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
            Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe Recent Activity
            a.. 1New Members
            Visit Your Group
            Yahoo! News
            Science News

            Get the latest

            scientific news.

            Search Ads
            Get new customers.

            List your web site

            in Yahoo! Search.

            Y! GeoCities
            Free Blogging

            Share your views

            with the world.
            .


            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Phil Schuster
            So what do we really have for evidence of whale evolution? Well, we have a series of fossils which has become more & more elaborate since the early 1990s. We
            Message 5 of 24 , Oct 4, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              So what do we really have for evidence of whale evolution? Well, we
              have a series of fossils which has become more & more elaborate since
              the early 1990s. We have DNA analyses that show a common genetic link
              between whales & artiodactyles, esp the hippo. We have evidence for
              the whale-hippo connection from an ankle bone which correlates well
              with the DNA evidence. We see chronologically placed fossils showing
              the gradual reduction of legs and progressive appearance of aquatic
              cetacean features. Not only that, but we have similar types of
              evidence for several lineages, esp of vertebrates like cynodonts-to-
              mammals, Ichthyostegids-to-amphibians, the Hyracotherium-to-Equus
              lineage for horses, the Hominid lineage etc... But the creationists
              here seem more concerned about dragging up old stories about Piltdown
              man or Haeckel's drawings than they do about discussing the evidence.
              So why doesn't someone actually try to dispute the evidence itself for
              the whale line (like Pakicetus -> Ambulocetus -> Rodhocetus ->
              Basilosaurus -> Protocetus -> Indocetus -> Eocetus)?
            • Clare Wilson Parr
              ... I d find molecular phylogeny data far more persuasive if DNA sequence and morphology / phenotype corresponded.... Numerous highly divergent organismal
              Message 6 of 24 , Oct 4, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                On 10/4/2006, Phil Schuster wrote:

                >So what do we really have for evidence of whale evolution?
                >Well, we have a series of fossils which has become more &
                >more elaborate since the early 1990s. We have DNA analyses
                >that show a common genetic link between whales & artiodactyles,
                >esp the hippo. We have evidence for the whale-hippo connection
                >from an ankle bone which correlates well with the DNA evidence.

                I'd find molecular phylogeny data far more persuasive if DNA
                sequence and morphology / phenotype corresponded....

                Numerous highly divergent organismal forms share identical
                DNA sequences [i.e., the caterpillar and the butterfly, or
                the "royal" and soldier / worker termites, or the axolotl
                and salamander] and virtually identical organismal forms
                harbor disparate DNA sequences [i.e., the Australian flying
                squirrel [marsupial] and the American flying squirrel
                [mammal].

                >So why doesn't someone actually try to dispute the evidence
                >itself for the whale line (like Pakicetus -> Ambulocetus ->
                >Rodhocetus -> Basilosaurus -> Protocetus -> Indocetus ->
                >Eocetus)?

                Well, to paraphrase Henry Gee, unless one assumes the truth of
                Darwin's theory when studying origins, the fossil record isn't
                evidentiary. To claim that fossil data represents this or that
                lineage is an assertion, not a testable scientific hypothesis....

                Clare
              • Phil Schuster
                ... Clare W Parr: I d find molecular phylogeny data far more persuasive if DNA sequence and morphology / phenotype corresponded.... Numerous highly divergent
                Message 7 of 24 , Oct 5, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 10/4/2006, Phil Schuster wrote:
                  >So what do we really have for evidence of whale evolution?
                  >Well, we have a series of fossils which has become more &
                  >more elaborate since the early 1990s. We have DNA analyses
                  >that show a common genetic link between whales & artiodactyles,
                  >esp the hippo. We have evidence for the whale-hippo connection
                  >from an ankle bone which correlates well with the DNA evidence.



                  Clare W Parr:
                  I'd find molecular phylogeny data far more persuasive if DNA
                  sequence and morphology / phenotype corresponded....

                  Numerous highly divergent organismal forms share identical
                  DNA sequences [i.e., the caterpillar and the butterfly, or
                  the "royal" and soldier / worker termites, or the axolotl
                  and salamander] and virtually identical organismal forms
                  harbor disparate DNA sequences [i.e., the Australian flying
                  squirrel [marsupial] and the American flying squirrel
                  [mammal].



                  Phil replies:
                  The first few examples are of two different stages or specialized
                  forms of the same species. Of course they would have nearly
                  identical DNA sequences. The differences in life stages can be
                  accounted for by which genes are turned on at a particular stage,
                  and differences in allometry in the same species require very few
                  genes to code for differential growth of homologous structures. Now
                  you can reopen the whole argument for homology being a circular
                  concept.

                  Then you show your complete inability to understand the concept of
                  phylogeny by comparing a placental flying squirrel to a marsupial
                  flying squirrel. They don't even belong to the same subclass of
                  mammals, so of course their DNA will be radically different, just
                  like the DNA of a whale is radically different from that of a large
                  fish. Your complete refusal to recognize the reality of phylogeny &
                  homology has put you in the position of making these ridiculous
                  comparisons.



                  Phil S:
                  >So why doesn't someone actually try to dispute the evidence
                  >itself for the whale line (like Pakicetus -> Ambulocetus ->
                  >Rodhocetus -> Basilosaurus -> Protocetus -> Indocetus ->
                  >Eocetus)?




                  Clare W Parr:
                  Well, to paraphrase Henry Gee, unless one assumes the truth of
                  Darwin's theory when studying origins, the fossil record isn't
                  evidentiary. To claim that fossil data represents this or that
                  lineage is an assertion, not a testable scientific hypothesis....



                  Phil S:
                  So does the fact that we find a progressive chronological change
                  from artiodactyl features to aquatic, cetacean ones result from a
                  prior set of darwinian assumptions? How coincidental. How
                  coincidental that the DNA evidence shows the exact same close
                  relationship between artiodactyls & cetaceans that the fossil record
                  alludes to. What a coincidence it is that we see the more recent
                  fossils bearing shorter hind legs, more posteriorly placed nostrils
                  ('til they become blowholes), more aquadynamic body shapes etc. How
                  coincidental that this fossil evidence is corroborated by the
                  appearance of hind limb buds in cetacean fetuses and vestigial
                  pelvic girdles in adults. You see, the evidence for evolution is
                  based on the congruence between so many different fields of biology,
                  beside the fossil record that you would have to make a conscious
                  effort to remain ignorant of biology in order to deny evolution.
                  Just make sure you don't read too much or comprehend too much of
                  what you do read so you can remain an anti-evolutionist.
                • Clare Wilson Parr
                  ... The caterpillar and the butterfly develop from shared totipotent embryonic cells; the caterpillar butterfly metamorphosis is stimulated by _hormones_.
                  Message 8 of 24 , Oct 5, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On 10/5/2006, Phil Schuster wrote:

                    >Clare W Parr:
                    >I'd find molecular phylogeny data far more
                    >persuasive if DNA sequence and morphology
                    >/ phenotype corresponded....
                    >
                    >Numerous highly divergent organismal forms
                    >share identical DNA sequences [i.e., the
                    >caterpillar and the butterfly, or the
                    >"royal" and soldier / worker termites, or
                    >the axolotl and salamander] and virtually
                    >identical organismal forms harbor disparate
                    >DNA sequences [i.e., the Australian flying
                    >squirrel [marsupial] and the American
                    >flying squirrel [mammal].
                    >
                    >Phil replies:
                    >The first few examples are of two different
                    >stages or specialized forms of the same
                    >species. Of course they would have
                    >nearly identical DNA sequences.

                    The caterpillar and the butterfly develop
                    from shared totipotent embryonic cells;
                    the caterpillar > butterfly metamorphosis
                    is stimulated by _hormones_.

                    The termite castes' specific forms and
                    functions reflect hormonally influenced
                    arrested development.

                    The difference between the axolotl and
                    the salamander amounts to one iodine
                    atom.

                    >The differences in life stages can be
                    >accounted for by which genes are turned
                    >on at a particular stage, and differences
                    >in allometry in the same species require
                    >very few genes to code for differential
                    >growth of homologous structures.

                    Oh. Well. That's that! I wonder whether
                    developmental biologists are aware that
                    the mysteries they're still so perplexed
                    by have been solved.... Oddly enough!

                    >Now you can reopen the whole argument
                    >for homology being a circular concept.

                    >Then you show your complete inability to
                    >understand the concept of phylogeny by
                    >comparing a placental flying squirrel to
                    >a marsupial flying squirrel. They don't
                    >even belong to the same subclass of
                    >mammals, so of course their DNA will be
                    >radically different, just like the DNA
                    >of a whale is radically different from
                    >that of a large fish.

                    You ignore the context in which I made the
                    Australian / American flying squirrel
                    comparison so you can triumphally proclaim
                    that my "inability to understand the concept
                    of phylogeny" is "complete.

                    The fact that [marsupial] Australian flying
                    squirrels and [placental] American flying
                    squirrels are all but identical morphologically
                    IN SPITE OF their molecular distinctiveness is
                    just one example that "a particular point of
                    morphological arrival can be reached starting
                    from different points of origin and following
                    different development trajectories" [Hans
                    Driesch]. The caterpillar > butterfly / termite
                    / axolotl > salamander examples illustrate
                    that different morphological destinations can
                    be reached starting from the same point of
                    origin.

                    My point: Morphological and molecular
                    phylogenies are quite inconsistent. And
                    molecular phylogenic constructions derived
                    using different mathematical analytic methods
                    are also quite inconsistent.

                    Most molecular phylogenies are extrapolated
                    from 18s ribosomal RNA molecule comparisons.
                    Alignment is problematic -- and if more than
                    two molecules or more than two organisms are
                    being compared, the computations are very
                    cumbersome. And molecular biologists do not
                    agree re: which of several mathematical
                    formulae yield the most accurate analysis,
                    and....

                    >Your complete refusal to recognize the reality
                    >of phylogeny & homology has put you in the
                    >position of making these ridiculous
                    >comparisons.

                    Speaking of ridiculous, what you assert is the
                    "reality of phylogeny & homology" is only a
                    reality so long as universal common descent
                    etc., is ASSUMED.

                    >Phil S:
                    >>So why doesn't someone actually try to dispute
                    >>the evidence itself for the whale line <<snip>>?
                    >
                    >Clare W Parr:
                    >Well, to paraphrase Henry Gee, unless one assumes
                    >the truth of Darwin's theory when studying origins,
                    >the fossil record isn't evidentiary. To claim that
                    >fossil data represents this or that lineage is an
                    >assertion, not a testable scientific hypothesis....
                    >
                    >Phil S:
                    >So does the fact that we find a progressive
                    >chronological change from artiodactyl features
                    >to aquatic, cetacean ones result from a prior
                    >set of darwinian assumptions? How coincidental.
                    >How coincidental that the DNA evidence shows the
                    >exact same close relationship between artiodactyls
                    >& cetaceans that the fossil record alludes to. What
                    >a coincidence it is that we see the more recent
                    >fossils bearing shorter hind legs, more posteriorly
                    >placed nostrils ('til they become blowholes), more
                    >aquadynamic body shapes etc. How coincidental that
                    >this fossil evidence is corroborated by the
                    >appearance of hind limb buds in cetacean fetuses
                    >and vestigial pelvic girdles in adults.

                    Why, yes indeedy! Coincidental is right!

                    1]Assume Darwinism. 2]Study fossils. 3] Infer
                    that the fossil data satisfies Darwin's
                    predictions.

                    Is the "whippo" controversy a creationist canard?

                    >You see, the evidence for evolution is based on
                    >the congruence between so many different fields
                    >of biology, beside the fossil record that you
                    >would have to make a conscious effort to remain
                    >ignorant of biology in order to deny evolution.
                    >Just make sure you don't read too much or
                    >comprehend too much of what you do read so you
                    >can remain an anti-evolutionist.

                    Or a person could find post hoc "congruence"
                    totally unpersuasive....
                  • Susan Cogan
                    ... This is puzzling. You ve just refuted yourself ... What evidence do you have that developmental biologists are perplexed by this? Phill isn t telling you
                    Message 9 of 24 , Oct 6, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      >On 10/5/2006, Phil Schuster wrote:
                      >
                      > >Clare W Parr:
                      > >I'd find molecular phylogeny data far more
                      > >persuasive if DNA sequence and morphology
                      > >/ phenotype corresponded....
                      > >
                      > >Numerous highly divergent organismal forms
                      > >share identical DNA sequences [i.e., the
                      > >caterpillar and the butterfly, or the
                      > >"royal" and soldier / worker termites, or
                      > >the axolotl and salamander] and virtually
                      > >identical organismal forms harbor disparate
                      > >DNA sequences [i.e., the Australian flying
                      > >squirrel [marsupial] and the American
                      > >flying squirrel [mammal].
                      > >
                      > >Phil replies:
                      > >The first few examples are of two different
                      > >stages or specialized forms of the same
                      > >species. Of course they would have
                      > >nearly identical DNA sequences.
                      >
                      >The caterpillar and the butterfly develop
                      >from shared totipotent embryonic cells;
                      >the caterpillar > butterfly metamorphosis
                      >is stimulated by _hormones_.
                      >
                      >The termite castes' specific forms and
                      >functions reflect hormonally influenced
                      >arrested development.
                      >
                      >The difference between the axolotl and
                      >the salamander amounts to one iodine
                      >atom.


                      This is puzzling. You've just refuted yourself


                      > >The differences in life stages can be
                      > >accounted for by which genes are turned
                      > >on at a particular stage, and differences
                      > >in allometry in the same species require
                      > >very few genes to code for differential
                      > >growth of homologous structures.
                      >
                      >Oh. Well. That's that! I wonder whether
                      >developmental biologists are aware that
                      >the mysteries they're still so perplexed
                      >by have been solved.... Oddly enough!



                      What evidence do you have that developmental biologists are perplexed
                      by this? Phill isn't telling you anything new or radical.


                      > >Now you can reopen the whole argument
                      > >for homology being a circular concept.
                      >
                      > >Then you show your complete inability to
                      > >understand the concept of phylogeny by
                      > >comparing a placental flying squirrel to
                      > >a marsupial flying squirrel. They don't
                      > >even belong to the same subclass of
                      > >mammals, so of course their DNA will be
                      > >radically different, just like the DNA
                      > >of a whale is radically different from
                      > >that of a large fish.
                      >
                      >You ignore the context in which I made the
                      >Australian / American flying squirrel
                      >comparison so you can triumphally proclaim
                      >that my "inability to understand the concept
                      >of phylogeny" is "complete.
                      >
                      >The fact that [marsupial] Australian flying
                      >squirrels and [placental] American flying
                      >squirrels are all but identical morphologically
                      >IN SPITE OF their molecular distinctiveness is
                      >just one example that "a particular point of
                      >morphological arrival can be reached starting
                      >from different points of origin and following
                      >different development trajectories" [Hans
                      >Driesch]. The caterpillar > butterfly / termite
                      >/ axolotl > salamander examples illustrate
                      >that different morphological destinations can
                      >be reached starting from the same point of
                      >origin.
                      >
                      >My point: Morphological and molecular
                      >phylogenies are quite inconsistent. And
                      >molecular phylogenic constructions derived
                      >using different mathematical analytic methods
                      >are also quite inconsistent.


                      you should read up on convergent evolution. Absolutely nobody
                      expects that two different organisms that ended up with similar
                      adaptations are necessarily related.


                      >Most molecular phylogenies are extrapolated
                      >from 18s ribosomal RNA molecule comparisons.
                      >Alignment is problematic -- and if more than
                      >two molecules or more than two organisms are
                      >being compared, the computations are very
                      >cumbersome. And molecular biologists do not
                      >agree re: which of several mathematical
                      >formulae yield the most accurate analysis,
                      >and....
                      >
                      > >Your complete refusal to recognize the reality
                      > >of phylogeny & homology has put you in the
                      > >position of making these ridiculous
                      > >comparisons.
                      >
                      >Speaking of ridiculous, what you assert is the
                      >"reality of phylogeny & homology" is only a
                      >reality so long as universal common descent
                      >etc., is ASSUMED.


                      universal common descent was proved a long time ago. Of course it is
                      now assumed. However, it was NOT assumed when Darwin first wrote
                      about it. An enormous amount of research went into substantiating it
                      since that time. Darwin himself spent his entire life researching it.
                      The results of his research is in his many books.


                      > >Phil S:
                      > >>So why doesn't someone actually try to dispute
                      > >>the evidence itself for the whale line <<snip>>?
                      > >
                      > >Clare W Parr:
                      > >Well, to paraphrase Henry Gee, unless one assumes
                      > >the truth of Darwin's theory when studying origins,
                      > >the fossil record isn't evidentiary. To claim that
                      > >fossil data represents this or that lineage is an
                      > >assertion, not a testable scientific hypothesis....
                      > >
                      > >Phil S:
                      > >So does the fact that we find a progressive
                      > >chronological change from artiodactyl features
                      > >to aquatic, cetacean ones result from a prior
                      > >set of darwinian assumptions? How coincidental.
                      > >How coincidental that the DNA evidence shows the
                      > >exact same close relationship between artiodactyls
                      > >& cetaceans that the fossil record alludes to. What
                      > >a coincidence it is that we see the more recent
                      > >fossils bearing shorter hind legs, more posteriorly
                      > >placed nostrils ('til they become blowholes), more
                      > >aquadynamic body shapes etc. How coincidental that
                      > >this fossil evidence is corroborated by the
                      > >appearance of hind limb buds in cetacean fetuses
                      > >and vestigial pelvic girdles in adults.
                      >
                      >Why, yes indeedy! Coincidental is right!
                      >
                      >1]Assume Darwinism. 2]Study fossils. 3] Infer
                      >that the fossil data satisfies Darwin's
                      >predictions.


                      if it was just one line of evidence you'd have a leg to stand on. But
                      it's not and you know it. We have fossils of many whales and
                      whale-like animals that just happened to be specially and
                      individually created by God one after another in just such a way as
                      to fool us into believing they evolved.

                      So you 1] assume your preacher's interpretation of the Bible is
                      inerrant 2] shackle yourself to science as it was understood 3000
                      years ago and 3] ignore, distort or misrepresent anything to the
                      contrary

                      I have no problem if you want to do that, just don't expect it to be
                      take seriously.


                      >Is the "whippo" controversy a creationist canard?


                      what controversy is that? DNA analysis proves that whales and hippos
                      are related. It's not a big surprise considering the hippo lifestyle.

                      Susan
                    • Clare Wilson Parr
                      ... During the early 1800s, an axolotl, native to Mexico, was transplanted to Paris, France -- the Jardin des Plantes, to be specific. It was subsequently
                      Message 10 of 24 , Oct 6, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On 10/6/2006, Susan Cogan wrote:

                        > >>Clare W Parr:
                        > >>I'd find molecular phylogeny data far more
                        > >>persuasive if DNA sequence and morphology
                        > >>/ phenotype corresponded....
                        > >>
                        > >>Numerous highly divergent organismal forms
                        > >>share identical DNA sequences [i.e., the
                        > >>caterpillar and the butterfly, or the
                        > >>"royal" and soldier / worker termites, or
                        > >>the axolotl and salamander] and virtually
                        > >>identical organismal forms harbor disparate
                        > >>DNA sequences [i.e., the Australian flying
                        > >>squirrel [marsupial] and the American
                        > >>flying squirrel [mammal].
                        > >>
                        > >>Phil replies:
                        > >>The first few examples are of two different
                        > >>stages or specialized forms of the same
                        > >>species. Of course they would have nearly
                        > >>identical DNA sequences.
                        > >
                        > >The caterpillar and the butterfly develop
                        > >from shared totipotent embryonic cells;
                        > >the caterpillar > butterfly metamorphosis
                        > >is stimulated by _hormones_.
                        > >
                        > >The termite castes' specific forms and
                        > >functions reflect hormonally influenced
                        > >arrested development.
                        > >
                        > >The difference between the axolotl and
                        > >the salamander amounts to one iodine
                        > >atom.
                        >
                        >This is puzzling. You've just refuted yourself

                        During the early 1800s, an axolotl, native to
                        Mexico, was transplanted to Paris, France --
                        the Jardin des Plantes, to be specific. It was
                        subsequently discovered that the Axototl had
                        morphed to a yellow and black salamander. It's
                        now known that the axolotl is larval Amblystoma.
                        In Mexico, the axolotl's development was
                        arrested at the larval stage, but it was able to
                        reproduce . The iodine-rich Paris water fostered
                        stimulation of the hormonal cascade that induces
                        axolotl > salamander metamorphosis.

                        > >>The differences in life stages can be
                        > >>accounted for by which genes are turned
                        > >>on at a particular stage, and differences
                        > >>in allometry in the same species require
                        > >>very few genes to code for differential
                        > >>growth of homologous structures.
                        > >
                        > >Oh. Well. That's that! I wonder whether
                        > >developmental biologists are aware that
                        > >the mysteries they're still so perplexed
                        > >by have been solved.... Oddly enough!
                        >
                        >What evidence do you have that developmental
                        >biologists are perplexed by this? Phill isn't
                        >telling you anything new or radical.

                        What Phil's told me is a simplistic,
                        reductionist fairy tale that ignores reality.

                        >you should read up on convergent evolution.
                        >Absolutely nobody expects that two different
                        >organisms that ended up with similar
                        >adaptations are necessarily related.

                        Convergent evolution is a lovely example of
                        the fact that Darwinism is impervious to
                        falsifiability.

                        Morphologically identical organisms that
                        harbor DIvergent DNA sequences are
                        attributed to CONvergent "evolution," but
                        Darwinists cannot explain how it is that
                        species "converge" morphologically while
                        their DNA molecules remain stubbornly
                        DIvergent.

                        > >Speaking of ridiculous, what you assert is the
                        > >"reality of phylogeny & homology" is only a
                        > >reality so long as universal common descent
                        > >etc., is ASSUMED.
                        >
                        >universal common descent was proved a long time
                        >ago. Of course it is now assumed.

                        You've just refuted yourself.

                        Assume: take to be the case or to be true; accept
                        without verification or proof.

                        Oh, and by the way, the universal common descent
                        hypothesis has not been proven; that's why it's
                        assumed.

                        > >1]Assume Darwinism. 2]Study fossils. 3] Infer
                        > >that the fossil data satisfies Darwin's
                        > >predictions.
                        >
                        >if it was just one line of evidence you'd have
                        >a leg to stand on. But it's not and you know it.

                        Tell it to Henry Gee and the many, many Darwinist
                        scientists who share his perspective.

                        Untestable inferences predicated on untestable
                        assumptions aren't evidence.

                        >So you 1] assume your preacher's interpretation of
                        >the Bible is inerrant 2] shackle yourself to science
                        >as it was understood 3000 years ago and 3] ignore,
                        >distort or misrepresent anything to the contrary
                        >I have no problem if you want to do that, just don't
                        >expect it to be take seriously.

                        I have no problem if you want to pretend that you're
                        telepathic, just don't expect anyone whose IQ is
                        higher than a gnat's to take such plainly absurd
                        nonsense seriously.

                        > >Is the "whippo" controversy a creationist canard?
                        >
                        >what controversy is that? DNA analysis proves that
                        >whales and hippos are related. It's not a big
                        >surprise considering the hippo lifestyle.

                        Dear, dear. You're "wrapping your ignorance around
                        you....! It's called curiosity. You should try it
                        sometime. It won't hurt. I promise. [Y]ou [don't]
                        stand at the pinnacle of human understanding.
                        There are some things that you don't understand
                        which are nevertheless true. The fact that it's
                        confusing and daunting to you doesn't mean it is
                        to everyone on the planet." [Susan Cogan / 08-28-
                        2006 <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/12724>.]
                      • Clare Wilson Parr
                        On 10/31/2006, Clare Wilson Parr wrote: ... You ve accused me of lying by misrepresentation and just lying. You ve accused me of cut[ting] and past[ing]
                        Message 11 of 24 , Nov 1, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On 10/31/2006, Clare Wilson Parr wrote:

                          On 10/31/2006, Susan Cogan wrote:

                          > >>so you've gone from lying by misrepresentation to just lying. In no
                          > >>place at all does Gee ever argue against evolution. And he
                          > explicitly
                          > >>says he does not doubt evolution.
                          >
                          > >>>Why did you bother with this transparent falsehood? Are you really
                          > >>>that desperate?
                          > >>
                          > >>I guess it just doesn't occur to you that
                          > >>strident name-calling and accusations are
                          > >>not persuasive.
                          > >
                          > >try sticking to the truth and they will stop.
                          >
                          >Newsflash: It doesn't follow that because a person disagrees
                          >with you he's a "LIAR"....
                          >
                          >I'm consoled by the fact that I'm in very good company, since
                          >Dr. Richards and Gert Korthof are "LIARS" too.
                          >
                          >I repeat:
                          >
                          >Whether Henry Gee is or is not "arguing against evolution or
                          >common descent" could not be more irrelevant. What is relevant
                          >is the substance of Gee's argument, i.e., that all the popular
                          >stories about how the first amphibians conquered dry land, how
                          >birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how dinosaurs became
                          >extinct and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our
                          >imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions that can't be
                          >part of science because they cannot be tested against the fossil
                          >record. Gee's _argument_ is "against" what Darwinists claim is
                          >"evidence" that confirms the "evolution" / "common descent"
                          >hypotheses.
                          >
                          > >I don't consider people who are speaking their own opinions to be
                          > >liars. You have repeatedly stated that you were convinced evolution
                          > >was not true by examining the evidence. You've never even attempted
                          > >to explain what evidence you examined and what weaknesses you saw in
                          > >it. Whenever somebody asks you, you cut and paste some dishonest
                          > >quote from some dishonest creationist website. Those folks will
                          > >ALWAYS betray you.
                          >
                          >Then you'll have no trouble substantiating your accusation by
                          >posting the "dishonest quote[s] from some dishonest creationist
                          >website" that I've "cut and past[ed]."
                          >
                          > >the miracle being that you were reading a book by Henry Gee one day,
                          > >found a quote you thought was important and just happened to
                          > >accidently copy it EXACTLY like all those thousands of creationist
                          > >websites copied it. You didn't add a sentence, start the quote at a
                          > >different place or even have a typo. And this happenstance has
                          > >occurred dozens of times now. You even accidentally cite the quotes
                          > >exactly as they do even when the cite is wrong.

                          You've accused me of "lying by misrepresentation" and "just lying."

                          You've accused me of "cut[ting] and past[ing] some dishonest
                          quote from some dishonest creationist website."

                          You've accused me of

                          "copy[ing] [the Gee quote] EXACTLY like all those thousands of
                          creationist websites copied it. You didn't add a sentence, start
                          the quote at a different place or even have a typo. And THIS
                          HAPPENSTANCE HAS OCCURRED DOZENS OF TIMES now. YOU EVEN
                          ACCIDENTALLY CITE THE QUOTES EXACTLY AS THEY DO EVEN WHEN THE CITE
                          IS WRONG."

                          Yesterday I requested that you substantiate your accusations, which
                          should be a very simple matter since you maintain that I've copied
                          and pasted "creationist" quotes verbatim "dozens of times ... even
                          when the cite is wrong," and which I'd think you'd be only too happy
                          to do in order to avoid being outed as a LIAR, a person who makes
                          unfounded, unwarranted, gratuitous personal accusations in response
                          to a debate opponent's arguments. So, put your money where your mouth
                          is: PROVE that I'm a LIAR. No back-pedaling, no equivocating, no
                          evading, just PROVE that I'm a LIAR.

                          The "dishonest quotes" I'm accused of having "cut and paste[d]
                          from some dishonest creationist website" that are "EXACTLY like
                          all those thousands of creationist websites copied it ... even
                          when the cite is wrong ... dozens of times now:"

                          On 10/4/2006, Clare Wilson Parr wrote:
                          Well, to paraphrase Henry Gee, unless one assumes the truth of
                          Darwin's theory when studying origins, the fossil record isn't
                          evidentiary. To claim that fossil data represents this or that
                          lineage is an assertion, not a testable scientific hypothesis....
                          ----

                          On 10/22/2006, Clare Wilson Parr wrote:
                          Sure. Just as Henry Gee, by arguing that we can know nothing
                          of evolutionary processes that occurred during those periods
                          that recede far into the past ... that only fanciful guessing
                          and aggrandizing prejudice could support any scenarios that
                          would describe, for instance, the evolution of limbs in
                          creatures venturing from the sea or the rise of Homo sapiens
                          from hominid progenitors ... who rejects as unscientific the
                          current hypothesis that the dinosaurs went extinct because an
                          asteroid collided with the earth and caused catastrophic
                          climate change, establishes what he argues is impossible....
                          ----

                          On 10/23/2006, Clare Wilson Parr wrote:
                          The fact is that Henry Gee has not been quoted out of context
                          by creationists. What perturbs Henry Gee is that Darwinist
                          fundamentalists are enraged because Gee has honestly acknowledged
                          simple, plain facts that are quite hostile to the Darwinists'
                          creation myth and give aid and comfort to their creationist
                          "enemies." Gee's simple, plain facts:

                          1] We can know nothing of evolutionary processes that
                          occurred during those periods that recede far into the past;

                          2] only fanciful guessing and aggrandizing prejudice could
                          support any scenarios that would describe, for instance, the
                          evolution of limbs in creatures venturing from the sea or
                          the rise of Homo sapiens from hominid progenitors;

                          3] the current hypothesis that the dinosaurs went extinct
                          because an asteroid collided with the earth and caused
                          catastrophic climate change is unscientific.

                          Gee, like Gould, Eldredge, Coyne, to name just a very,
                          very few, have wandered from the "ultra-Darwinists'" one
                          true way, so they're "punished" by being stigmatized as
                          apostates, just as "wayward" Marxists and Freudians were
                          stigmatized as heretics by messianic Marxist and Freudian
                          ideologues.
                          ----

                          On 10/23/2006, Clare Wilson Parr wrote:
                          Gee states, in black and white:

                          "I write that "IF it is fair to ASSUME that all life
                          on Earth shares a common evolutionary origin..." and
                          then go on to make clear that this is the ASSUMPTION
                          I am making throughout the book."

                          "That it is impossible to trace direct lineages of
                          ancestry and descent from the fossil record should
                          be self-evident. Ancestors must exist, of course
                          -- but we can never attribute ancestry to any
                          particular fossil we might find."

                          "[T]he point of IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, ironically,
                          is that old-style, traditional evolutionary biology
                          -- the type that feels it must tell a story, and is
                          therefore more appealing to news reporters and makers
                          of documentaries -- is unscientific."
                          ----

                          On 10/24/2006, Clare Wilson Parr wrote:
                          Henry Gee's own words, per the NCSE web post, _Gee Responds
                          to Discovery Institute's use of Quotation_, dated 10/15/2001
                          / [<http://urlcut.com/1cdga>], that you posted yesterday,
                          "cast doubt on the 'evidence' for evolution:"

                          Darwinian evolution by natural selection is taken as a given in IN
                          SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, and this is made clear several times e.g. on p5
                          (paperback edition) I write that "IF IT IS FAIR TO ASSUME THAT ALL
                          LIFE ON EARTH SHARES A COMMON EVOLUTIONARY ORIGIN..." and then go on
                          to make clear that THIS IS THE ASSUMPTION I AM MAKING THROUGHOUT THE
                          BOOK. For the Discovery Institute to quote from my book without
                          reference to this is mischievous.

                          THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO TRACE DIRECT LINEAGES OF ANCESTRY AND
                          DESCENT FROM THE FOSSIL RECORD SHOULD BE SELF-EVIDENT. Ancestors
                          must exist, of course -- but WE CAN NEVER ATTRIBUTE ANCESTRY TO ANY
                          PARTICULAR FOSSIL WE MIGHT FIND. Just try this thought experiment --
                          let's say you find a fossil of a hominid, an ancient member of the
                          human family. You can recognize various attributes that suggest
                          kinship to humanity, but you would never know whether this
                          particular fossil represented your lineal ancestor - even if that
                          were actually the case. The reason is that fossils are never buried
                          with their birth certificates. Again, THIS IS A LOGICAL CONSTRAINT
                          THAT MUST APPLY EVEN IF EVOLUTION WERE TRUE -- WHICH IS NOT IN
                          DOUBT, BECAUSE IF WE DIDN'T HAVE ANCESTORS, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE
                          HERE. Neither does this mean that fossils exhibiting transitional
                          structures do not exist, nor that it is impossible to reconstruct
                          what happened in evolution. Unfortunately, many paleontologists
                          believe that ancestor/descendent lineages can be traced from the
                          fossil record, and my book is intended to debunk this view. However,
                          this disagreement is hardly evidence of some great scientific
                          coverup -- religious fundamentalists such as the DI -- who live by
                          dictatorial fiat -- fail to understand that scientific disagreement
                          is a mark of health rather than decay. However, the point of IN
                          SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, ironically, is that OLD-STYLE, TRADITIONAL
                          EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY -- THE TYPE THAT FEELS IT MUST TELL A STORY,
                          and is therefore more appealing to news reporters and makers of
                          documentaries -- IS UNSCIENTIFIC.
                          ----

                          On 10/25/2006, Clare Wilson Parr wrote:
                          "The intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge
                          that we cannot say anything definite about their possible
                          connection through ancestry and descent." ~ Henry Gee /
                          _In search of deep time_ / The Free Press / 1999.

                          Furthermore, per _In search of deep time_,

                          Gee maintains that, to be scientifically supported,
                          a hypothesis must be testable, but there is no way
                          experimentally to test hypotheses re: events that
                          occurred long, long, long ago and far away.

                          Gee urges that cladistical techniques be used to arrange
                          contemporary species and fossil relatives. The method
                          organizes both living and extinct species into nesting
                          pairs, associated by the similarity of their respective
                          traits. Cladists ASSUME that related species (Homo
                          sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis, for instance) inherited
                          similar traits from a recent common ancestor, but they do
                          not attempt to identify that ancestor with any species
                          extant or extinct. Early cladists regarded efforts at
                          such identification as beyond empirical analysis, so their
                          reference to a "recent common ancestor" is a formality.
                          ----

                          On 10/25/2006, Clare Wilson Parr wrote:
                          "The intervals of time that separate fossils are so huge
                          that we cannot say anything definite about their possible
                          connection through ancestry and descent." ~ Henry Gee /
                          _In search of deep time_ / The Free Press / 1999.

                          Furthermore, per _In search of deep time_,

                          Gee maintains that, to be scientifically supported,
                          a hypothesis must be testable, but there is no way
                          experimentally to test hypotheses re: events that
                          occurred long, long, long ago and far away.

                          Gee urges that cladistical techniques be used to arrange
                          contemporary species and fossil relatives. The method
                          organizes both living and extinct species into nesting
                          pairs, associated by the similarity of their respective
                          traits. Cladists ASSUME that related species (Homo
                          sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis, for instance) inherited
                          similar traits from a recent common ancestor, but they do
                          not attempt to identify that ancestor with any species
                          extant or extinct. Early cladists regarded efforts at
                          such identification as beyond empirical analysis, so their
                          reference to a "recent common ancestor" is a formality.
                          ----

                          "Henry Gee, an editor at the journal Nature in London, also
                          believes the human mind falls into darkness when
                          attempting to probe deep time. His book thus bears a
                          rather discomforting title, since its principal argument
                          is that we can know nothing of evolutionary processes that
                          occurred during those periods that recede far into the past.
                          He maintains that only fanciful guessing and aggrandizing
                          prejudice could support any scenarios that would describe,
                          for instance, the evolution of limbs in creatures venturing
                          from the sea or the rise of Homo sapiens from hominid
                          progenitors. He rejects as unscientific the current hypothesis
                          that the dinosaurs went extinct because an asteroid collided
                          with the earth and caused catastrophic climate change. For,
                          after all, ''you cannot go back in time to watch the dinosaurs
                          become extinct.''

                          "To be scientifically supported, a hypothesis must, he urges,
                          be amenable to test; but there is no way experimentally to
                          test events that occurred in the past....

                          "Gee focuses several chapters on traditional beliefs about
                          processes of evolutionary acquisition that have had to be
                          scotched in light of new evidence. Thus his penultimate chapter
                          describes research seeming to show that certain species of dinosaurs
                          developed birdlike adaptations -- feathers and light, hollow bones
                          -- prior to evolving true wings. Hence those adaptations could not
                          have been the result of animals' gliding from treetops in efforts at
                          primitive flight, as some ''voodoo paleontology'' has suggested. We
                          just cannot know how creatures took to the air. ~ Robert J. Richards,
                          professor of history and the philosophy of science at the University
                          of Chicago, and the author of _Darwin and the emergence of
                          evolutionary theories of mind and behavior_." ~ Robert J. Richards,
                          a professor of history and the philosophy of science at the
                          University of Chicago, and the author of _Darwin and the Emergence
                          of Evolutionary Theories of Mind and Behavior_.
                          ----

                          On 10/29/2006, Clare Wilson Parr wrote:
                          >Phil S:
                          >I do know that you don't accept evolution. I do know that you aren't
                          >familiar with the evidence, because you think that Henry Gee's words
                          >about what we can't tell about the specifics of lineages can be
                          >taken as an argument against evolution.

                          Henry Gee's words ARE "an argument against evolution."
                          ----
                        • mephili
                          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok
                          Message 12 of 24 , Dec 26, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok
                          • palmcharlesuu
                            Charles P: Very entertaining 2007 video. Thank you, David. The ideas of some scientists have changed a lot since then.
                            Message 13 of 24 , Dec 26, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Charles P:  Very entertaining 2007 video.  Thank you, David.  The ideas of some scientists have changed a lot since then.
                            • mephili
                              David Williams: Do some scientists now think that Holy Bejesus designed whales, and then had his angels make them in a whale shop?
                              Message 14 of 24 , Dec 26, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment
                                David Williams:  Do some scientists now think that Holy Bejesus designed whales, and then had his angels make them in a whale shop?
                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.