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

Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Has universal common descent been falsified?

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    D R Lindberg: By the way, when are you going to answer the questions I asked you a couple of days ago? Charles P: My apologies. Please repeat the questions.
    Message 1 of 7 , Jun 30, 2011
      D R Lindberg: By the way, when are you going to answer the questions I
      asked you a couple of days ago?

      Charles P: My apologies. Please repeat the questions.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • D R Lindberg
      ... I ... I ll do better than that. I ll repeat your responses as well, and try to explain why they are not adequate answers. ... What ... for a ... to ...
      Message 2 of 7 , Jul 1, 2011
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > D R Lindberg: By the way, when are you going to answer the questions
        I
        > asked you a couple of days ago?
        >
        > Charles P: My apologies. Please repeat the questions.
        >
        I'll do better than that. I'll repeat your responses as well, and try to
        explain why they are not adequate answers.


        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...>
        wrote:
        >
        > D R Lindberg: Are you accusing Horner of being biased? In what way?
        What
        > evidence do you have for this accusation? Why do you think it is good
        for a
        > scientist to be biased?
        >
        > Charles P: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biased "tending
        to
        > yield one outcome more frequently than others in a statistical
        experiment".
        > Being biased is probably the best reason to do an experiment. I like
        > Horner and I hope that he is successful in his "dino-chicken"
        research. If
        > he believed that dinosaurs magically appeared on Earth, I do not
        believe
        > that he would even bother to do any research. I am biased. I
        believe that
        > there is a scientific description for the diversity of life. I am
        biased in
        > favor of doing any research that leads student to understand better
        the
        > description for the diversity of life.
        >
        > Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics Willi Henning was
        > biased when he founded cladistics. I am glad that he developed a
        systematic
        > method to classify the millions of species known to scientists.
        Surely he
        > must have believed in the concept of common ancestry. If not, he
        probably
        > would never have developed phylogenetic systematics.
        >
        You seem to be talking around my question instead of answering it. The
        definition you give refers to statistical methods, not to people. You
        merely state that Horner and now Henning are biased, without providing
        any evidence. Unless you mean they are biased in favour of finding
        truthful and accurate answers to questions?

        > D R Lindberg: It is not OK to disagree before understanding. All I
        can say
        > is that your comments do not seem to make sense, but do seem to be
        > contradicted by the very evidence that you present.
        >
        > Charles P: I truly appreciate your asking questions. I learn by my
        > mistakes. Please help me to learn more. Disagreement BEFORE
        understanding
        > is OK with me. It shows that we often have a preconceived bias and
        have
        > formed incorrect conclusions. The challenging of those ideas usually
        > results in one of two possible outcomes: we realize that the first
        > conclusion was "tentative" and "not reliable" or we realize that our
        > improved understanding makes that first conclusion seem "reliable" and
        "not
        > tentative".
        >

        More fog, rather than light.

        It seems to me that before I understand something, all I can say is I
        don't know. It doesn't make any sense to say I disagree when I don't
        understand what it is I am disagreeing with, any more that it would make
        sense to say I agree when I don't understand what I'm agreeing with.

        Asitawa, ame ga futte imasita.

        Or how about:

        Ana Nevukhadnatser shleh khaveit bveiti.

        Do you agree or disagree with these statements?


        > D R Lindberg: If the system makes sense of the evidence, what is your
        > complaint? Again you are giving more weight to your own prejudices
        that to
        > the experience and work of hundreds of scientists. Have you considered
        > the possibility that your prejudices or else your understanding
        > of cladistics may be in error?
        >
        > Charles P: Maybe you are correct. Please show me the errors. I
        learn by
        > my mistakes.
        >
        You should really talk to someone who knows more about it than I do, and
        who can explain things clearly.

        Cladistics seems to be of putting a lot of information together in a way
        that makes it easier and clearer to see trends and perhaps problems
        (perhaps something like those charts we often see of the stock market,
        going up and down, with lots of squiggles, but generally trending upward
        - one stock or a number of stocks might go up on a day when the general
        trend is down, so won't necessarily be seen, but that doesn't mean that
        the whole chart is wrong).

        It is only a way of putting information together so that it can be
        further tested. You seem to think of it as some sort of independent
        science with no relation to reality.


        > D R Lindberg: Let's see if I understand your thinking, since you
        don't seem
        > to want to explain it clearly. When you talk about "descent with
        limited
        > modification," I understand that you mean that ALL species alive today
        and
        > ALL species that have gone extinct were all in existence "from
        > the beginning." Is this a correct interpretation of your ideas?
        >
        > Charles P: Yes. Keep that interpretation in mind as you do your own
        > research. If I am wrong, you will find the evidence to contradict
        that
        > interpretation. The best examples are the living fossils. I do not
        want to
        > speculate about when each species appeared on Earth, but billions of
        years
        > ago is OK with me if the Cyanobacteria have been evolving for billions
        of
        > years. Research on the living fossils does not give us any clues as
        to
        > which species appeared first.
        >
        Here you seem to be pulling back from your claim. If you are not willing
        to "speculate about when each species appeared on Earth," what on earth
        is the purpose of your theory? What does it explain?

        The question under consideration is how do we explain the diversity
        among living things on earth. Your alternative explanation now appears
        to be an evasion of the question.

        Even if we agree that all present-day species have been on earth since
        the beginning, we have still not explained why or how they got there.
        What was the cause of this diversity?

        Actually, research on living organisms can give clues as to when they
        arose, through what geneticists call "molecular clocks."

        Just a bit more evidence you are going to have to dump overboard.


        > D R Lindberg: If so, this idea leads to several questions: Just when
        was
        > "the beginning?" Do you mean the beginning of the universe some 13 or
        14
        > billion years ago, or the beginning of the earth some 4.54 billion
        years
        > ago, or the beginnings of life as currently understood by
        paleontologists
        > perhaps 3.5 billion years ago? Or do you believe, like some Hindus,
        that
        > there was no beginning, and the universe, the earth and life have
        always
        > existed?
        >
        > Charles P: The physical evidence shows that life on Earth appeared
        for the
        > first time billions of years ago. I have found no evidence that would
        > suggest otherwise. What the Hindus believe is philosophy. I am OK
        with
        > people having their own philosophy. My only interest is a scientific
        > description of the diversity of life.
        >
        See above.


        > D R Lindberg: Were "modern" humans around from the beginning, however
        you
        > define it?
        >
        > Charles P: Thank you, again, for asking. You inspired me to
        thoroughly
        > examine the evidence for the Laetoli footprints. Do you remember my
        March
        > 22, 2011, post "Who really made the Laetoli Footprints 3.6 million
        years
        > ago? What really impressed me is the fact that there are no
        > Australopithecus afarensis fossil feet among the bones of A. afarensis
        > fossils and the Laetoli footprints definitely look human. If I were a
        > "current theory" scientist, I would have concluded that the dating of
        the
        > footprints was in error. However, when one new "human-like" foot bone
        was
        > found in Ethiopia, again the "current theory" scientists were certain
        that
        > the dating of that fossil foot bone was accurate. If all of this
        evidence
        > is reliable, it looks like humans were in Laetoli 3.6 million years
        ago.
        > Believers in the "current theory" say that is impossible because
        humans had
        > not evolved yet. An open minded person uses this interpretation and
        begins
        > searching for evidence to contradict the interpretation. This is what
        I am
        > hoping that you and others will do. As I said, I learn by my
        mistakes.
        >

        Again, I don't see what that has to do with my question. What evidence
        do you have that modern humans, and all other of the millions of modern
        species, have been around for billions of years? Just finding a few of
        what you think are inconsistencies in evidence for other people's
        propositions does not constitute evidence for yours.

        > D R Lindberg: Why are the patterns in which fossils are found within
        the
        > geological record so different from what would be expected if all
        species
        > had
        > always existed? Paleontologists tell us that 99.9% of all species are
        > extinct.
        >
        > Where fossils are found: http://paleo.cc/kpaleo/fossfind.htm
        > 1 Most fossils are found in sedimentary rock, which is the most
        common type
        > of rock on earth. Sedimentary rocks form when particles of sediment
        are
        > deposited by water or wind, and then (in most cases) hardened or
        > consolidated through time.
        > 2 Occasionally fossils occur in materials other than sedimentary
        rock, such
        > as ancient tree resin (amber), in which insects or other small animals
        > became stuck and entombed. Similarly, bones of mammoths, saber-tooth
        cats,
        > and other extinct animals have been found in tar pits, in which
        unfortunate
        > animals became trapped and mired. Fossils in amber or tar are often
        > preserved with extreme detail.
        >
        Why are no dinosaurs found in those tar pits. Why are no modern humans
        or parts thereof (say, their hair, or toenail clippings, or
        fingerprints) found in that amber?


        > Charles P: A simplistic view might conclude that the farther
        scientists go
        > back in time, they find "simpler" fossils; the more "advanced" species
        are
        > more recent. No one can conclude much from "missing" fossils.

        Why not? All you have to base your "theory" on is the hope that billions
        of fossils will be found that contradict the present theory. Hope is not
        evidence.

        If you believe in God, you must believe that He is a complete fraudster,
        only allowing us to find evidence that is leading us so badly astray.

        > All of
        > life's diversity can be grouped into one of these three groups:
        > 1 Living species with no ancient fossils discovered yet.
        > 2 Living fossils with some ancient fossils discovered.
        > 3 Extinct fossils with no living species discovered yet and no known
        > immediate ancestor nor known immediate decendents.
        >
        Reality can be divided up in many ways. Many people seem to divide
        humanity into those who agree with "me" (whoever "me" happens to be) and
        everybody else, and then claim that all those other billions of humans
        have no other interest or concern in life than to engage in some sort of
        super conspiracy to deceive me and my little group.

        We divide animal life into "humans" and "animals," meaning all others. I
        imagine cats would divide animal life into cats (their particular
        species) and all others, grouping us humans in together with the lions
        and tigers, just as we put monkeys and apes in with the cats and dogs.
        And someone from Mars would probably put us all into the same category.

        So reality can be divided into ways that make sense to an outside
        observer and ways that don't.

        What is your justification for your particular grouping?


        > Charles P: Fossils of mammoths or saber-tooth cats trapped in tar
        could
        > not escape. Insects trapped in amber could not escape. "Advanced"
        species
        > could move away and not be trapped in sediment BEFORE it became rock.
        > "Simple" species could not move away to avoid being trapped in
        sediment
        > BEFORE it became rock. Fossils or footprints trapped by falling
        volcanic
        > ash are very rare. I read somewhere that there are more
        paleontologists
        > than there are fossil sites.
        >
        Insects, mammoths and saber-toothed cats ARE advanced species. Fossils
        are normally formed by creatures than become trapped in sediment after
        they are dead, when it's a bit difficult to move away - although fossils
        often show signs of having been torn apart by animals or fast-moving
        water.

        Or did all those long-ago humans and other species you are hypothesizing
        all live forever?

        What about plants? Plants and especially plant pollen fossilize and are
        very common in rock of the appropriate age. If present-day plants were
        in existence from the beginning, is it not strange that none of their
        pollen is found in those old rocks, since pollen will pervade
        everything, as anyone with allergies can tell you.


        > D R Lindberg: This means that, if they all existed from the
        beginning,
        > there were at one time 1000 times as many species on earth as there
        are at
        > present. Since they all require vastly differing environments in order
        to
        > survive, how was there enough space and enough variety of environments
        on
        > the earth at one time (ice ages and extreme heat, atmospheric oxygen
        varying
        > from near zero to the present 21%, to name just two of the many
        factors
        > that have varied over time)? How do you suggest that polar bears,
        > dinosaurs, moose, alligators,wooly mammoths, rattlesnakes, penguins,
        monarch
        > butterflies, mountain goats, archaeopteryx, jaguars, pandas,
        pterodactyls,
        > giant sloths, frogs, kangaroos, walruses, camels, snails, gila
        monsters, all
        > species of early hominids, cactus, water lilies, palm trees, giant
        mosses,
        > spruce and baobab could have all lived together in the same climate,
        since
        > this is the sort of mishmash that your idea implies, isn't it? Every
        square
        > metre would have to have the same amount of diversity that we now find
        only
        > in the Amazon jungles.
        >
        > Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Biogenic_theory
        Maybe
        > the biogenic theory of Georg Bauer in 1546 was correct? The fossil
        fuels of
        > today are probably millions of year old.

        According to your theory, some of these fossil fuels at least should be
        billions of years old. Where have they been found?

        I don't find anything about Georg Bauer's theory on that page. Please
        explain the theory and its relevance.

        > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html Radioactive carbon-14 in
        coal
        > deposits seem to indicate an age of around 40,000 years, not the 300
        million
        > years claimed by some scientists. Maybe radiometric dating methods
        used by
        > "current theory" scientists are "tentative" and "not reliable"?
        Remember
        > that Pasha and I discussed this fully several months ago when I
        brought up
        > the concept of "precise" but "not accurate"?
        >
        Your own reference explains why that 40,000 year figure is wrong.

        It sounds like in order to support your theory, which has no evidence,
        you want to throw out again another theory that has plenty of evidence.
        Please explain why this is a rational way to proceed?


        > D R Lindberg: Why are the DNA patterns that seem to show genetic
        > relationships almost identical to those indicated by morphological
        > similarities so deceptive? Please answer these questions, so we can
        begin
        > to try understanding your thoughts. Thank you!
        >
        > Charles P: The only way to determine ancestry correctly is with
        physical
        > DNA evidence. Please keep this in mind as you do your research. The
        > genomes reported in the last decade are not yet sufficient evidence to
        > conclude much about the ancient diversity of life. I am biased. I
        believe
        > in limited evolution. I believe in descent with limited modification.
        I
        > believe that if scientists could somehow travel back in time that they
        would
        > see "look alike" ancestors of present day species. However, I have an
        open
        > mind. Go ahead; put something in it. Please show me some physical
        evidence
        > that contradicts my conclusions. It is OK to disagree. However, I
        hope
        > that anyone who disagrees with me will make side-by-side comparisons
        with
        > scientific evidence for the diversity of life.
        >
        Just why does the fact that we share 99% of our genome (physical DNA
        evidence) with chimps NOT constitute "sufficient evidence" that we are
        more closely related to them than we are to some organism with which we
        share say 49% of our genome?

        You not only have no evidence for your theory of limited evolution, but
        you also have no theoretical basis for it either, at least none that you
        have shared with us. Where is this limitation? What causes it?

        If people can walk across the room, given enough time people can walk
        around the world (I once read a book by someone who claimed to be the
        first to ride a motorcycle around the world. He says that while going
        through Turkey, he met a man with a big sign, "First Man to Walk Around
        the World Backwards!"). People have even rowed boats across the
        Atlantic, and it seems to me the Pacific as well.

        So if organisms can evolved a little bit in a short time, why couldn't
        they evolve a lot in a long time? This is a question that creationists
        and ID-types have been asked time and again, and no one has ever
        suggested a shadow of an answer, so why should we take you seriously
        now?


        > Charles P: I believe that the "current theory" of evolution is not
        > consistent with physical evidence from ancient times and is no longer
        a
        > respectable theory describing the diversity of ancient life. I
        believe that
        > the "current theory" of evolution is valuable for describing the
        diversity
        > of recent and future life, but needs to be updated to reflect what is
        > scientifically known about ancient life.
        >
        Just what "physical evidence from ancient times" is it not consistent
        with? All you seem to have is a couple of cases of supposedly ambivalent
        or inadequate evidence, not contrary evidence.

        You can believe anything you like, but if you want to convince anyone
        else, you will have to provide concrete coherent evidence.

        Cheers!







        If a high school student was to write a book about advanced neuron
        structures of the human mind, would you consider that book fact?
        That's what creationists are doing, writing books without research.
        Since they write for quantity, they hide the fact that they aren't
        really making any points or presenting evidence.
        - Biologist, http://www.christianforums.com/t3730398&page=3
        <http://www.christianforums.com/t3730398&page=3>





        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Charles Palm
        D R Lindberg: I ll do better than that. I ll repeat your responses as well, and try to explain why they are not adequate answers. D R Lindberg: You seem to
        Message 3 of 7 , Jul 2, 2011
          D R Lindberg: I'll do better than that. I'll repeat your responses as well,
          and try to explain why they are not adequate answers.

          D R Lindberg: You seem to be talking around my question instead of
          answering it. The definition you give refers to statistical methods, not to
          people. You merely state that Horner and now Henning are biased, without
          providing any evidence. Unless you mean they are biased in favour of
          finding truthful and accurate answers to questions? More fog, rather than
          light. It seems to me that before I understand something, all I can say is
          I don't know. It doesn't make any sense to say I disagree when I
          don't understand what it is I am disagreeing with, any more that it would
          make sense to say I agree when I don't understand what I'm agreeing with.
          Asitawa, ame ga futte imasita. Or how about: Ana Nevukhadnatser shleh
          khaveit bveiti. Do you agree or disagree with these statements?

          Charles P: Please repeat my responses and explain why they are not adequate
          answers.

          D R Lindberg: You should really talk to someone who knows more about it
          than I do, and who can explain things clearly. Cladistics seems to be of
          putting a lot of information together in a way that makes it easier and
          clearer to see trends and perhaps problems (perhaps something like those
          charts we often see of the stock market, going up and down, with lots of
          squiggles, but generally trending upward - one stock or a number of stocks
          might go up on a day when the general trend is down, so won't necessarily be
          seen, but that doesn't mean that the whole chart is wrong). It is only a
          way of putting information together so that it can be further tested. You
          seem to think of it as some sort of independent science with no relation to
          reality.

          Charles P: It is OK if you are not able to "explain things clearly".
          Cladistics is very useful as a systematic method for classifying living
          species. The phone book is very useful as a systematic method for
          classifying phone numbers.

          D R Lindberg: Here you seem to be pulling back from your claim. If you are
          not willing to "speculate about when each species appeared on Earth," what
          on earth is the purpose of your theory? What does it explain? The question
          under consideration is how do we explain the diversity among living things
          on earth. Your alternative explanation now appears to be an evasion of the
          question. Even if we agree that all present-day species have been on earth
          since the beginning, we have still not explained why or how they got there.
          What was the cause of this diversity? Actually, research on living
          organisms can give clues as to when they arose, through what geneticists
          call "molecular clocks." Just a bit more evidence you are going to have to
          dump overboard.

          Charles P: I understand that you continue to believe in the "current
          theory". That is OK. It is just unscientific because it requires faith
          rather than physical evidence. I do not "speculate about when each species
          appeared on Earth"; is irrelevant. Only the believers in the "current
          theory" consider it important.

          D R Lindberg: Again, I don't see what that has to do with my question. What
          evidence do you have that modern humans, and all other of the millions of
          modern species, have been around for billions of years? Just finding a few
          of what you think are inconsistencies in evidence for other
          people's propositions does not constitute evidence for yours.

          Charles P: You are correct. Inconsistencies in evidence for other people's
          propositions does not constitute evidence for mine. I have concluded that
          the physical evidence describes the diversity of living species. I have
          concluded that the physical evidence describes the diversity of living
          fossil species. I have concluded that the physical evidence DOES NOT
          describe the ancestry of ancient extinct fossil species. There is no
          consensus among scientists to conclude that one older ancient fossil species
          is the ancestor of two or more younger ancient fossil species.

          D R Lindberg: Why are no dinosaurs found in those tar pits. Why are no
          modern humans or parts thereof (say, their hair, or toenail clippings,
          or fingerprints) found in that amber?

          Charles P: Your guess is as good as mine. No one can conclude much from
          non-existent fossils.

          D R Lindberg: Why not? All you have to base your "theory" on is the hope
          that billions of fossils will be found that contradict the present theory.
          Hope is not evidence. If you believe in God, you must believe that He is a
          complete fraudster, only allowing us to find evidence that is leading us so
          badly astray.

          Charles P: You are correct. Hope is not evidence. For the last 150 years,
          many scientist have hoped to find evidence that one older ancient fossil
          species is the ancestor of two or more younger ancient fossil species.

          D R Lindberg: Reality can be divided up in many ways. Many people seem to
          divide humanity into those who agree with "me" (whoever "me" happens to be)
          and everybody else, and then claim that all those other billions of
          humans have no other interest or concern in life than to engage in some sort
          of super conspiracy to deceive me and my little group. We divide animal
          life into "humans" and "animals," meaning all others. I imagine cats would
          divide animal life into cats (their particular species) and all others,
          grouping us humans in together with the lions and tigers, just as we put
          monkeys and apes in with the cats and dogs. And someone from Mars would
          probably put us all into the same category. So reality can be divided into
          ways that make sense to an outside observer and ways that don't. What is
          your justification for your particular grouping?

          Charles P: I am interested in the description of the diversity of life.
          There are many living species that have no known fossils of ancient
          ancestors. There are many ancient fossils that have no known living
          species. The living fossils have known living species and known ancient
          fossil ancestors.

          D R Lindberg: Insects, mammoths and saber-toothed cats ARE advanced
          species. Fossils are normally formed by creatures than become trapped in
          sediment after they are dead, when it's a bit difficult to move away -
          although fossils often show signs of having been torn apart by animals or
          fast-moving water. Or did all those long-ago humans and other species you
          are hypothesizing all live forever? What about plants? Plants and
          especially plant pollen fossilize and are very common in rock of the
          appropriate age. If present-day plants were in existence from the beginning,
          is it not strange that none of their pollen is found in those old rocks,
          since pollen will pervade everything, as anyone with allergies can tell you.

          Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biostratigraphy "Biostratigraphy
          is the branch of stratigraphy which focuses on correlating and assigning
          relative ages of rock strata by using the fossil assemblages contained
          within them". For example, if a scientist finds "look-alike" pollen in rock
          strata, the scientist would assume that the rock strata is not ancient. The
          scientist is not likely to invest time and money contradicting the "current
          theory".

          D R Lindberg: According to your theory, some of these fossil fuels at least
          should be billions of years old. Where have they been found? I don't find
          anything about Georg Bauer's theory on that page. Please explain the theory
          and its relevance.

          Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Biogenic_theory "It was
          used in the treatise De Natura Fossilium, published in 1546 by the German
          mineralogist Georg Bauer, also known as Geogius Agricola". Please read the
          theory and then please conclude for yourself if it is relevant or not to
          your beliefs. There may be older ancient molecules mixed with younger
          ancient molecules in fossil fuels.

          D R Lindberg: Your own reference explains why that 40,000 year figure is
          wrong. It sounds like in order to support your theory, which has no
          evidence, you want to throw out again another theory that has plenty of
          evidence. Please explain why this is a rational way to proceed?

          Charles P: Maybe radiometric dating methods used by "current theory"
          scientists are "tentative" and "not reliable"? In the meantime, let us use
          the evidence we have. The "current theory" reference is not likely to
          contradict the current theory philosophy. The physical evidence concludes
          that there is carbon-14 in coal. The "current theory" teaches that all
          living species contain a certain amount of carbon-14 in equilibrium with the
          environment. When an organism dies, the carbon-14 decays to nitrogen-14 at
          a known rate. According to the "current theory" there should be no
          carbon-14 in coal. The theory is not correct; there is carbon-14 in coal.
          No doubt about it. Believers in the "current theory" interpret the results
          one way; non-believers interpret the results another way. Regardless of
          one's beliefs, there is carbon-14 in coal.

          D R Lindberg: Just why does the fact that we share 99% of our genome
          (physical DNA evidence) with chimps NOT constitute "sufficient evidence"
          that we are more closely related to them than we are to some organism with
          which we share say 49% of our genome? You not only have no evidence for
          your theory of limited evolution, but you also have no theoretical basis for
          it either, at least none that you have shared with us. Where is this
          limitation? What causes it? If people can walk across the room, given
          enough time people can walk around the world (I once read a book by someone
          who claimed to be the first to ride a motorcycle around the world. He says
          that while going through Turkey, he met a man with a big sign, "First Man to
          Walk Around the World Backwards!"). People have even rowed boats across
          the Atlantic, and it seems to me the Pacific as well. So if organisms can
          evolved a little bit in a short time, why couldn't they evolve a lot in a
          long time? This is a question that creationists and ID-types have been asked
          time and again, and no one has ever suggested a shadow of an answer, so why
          should we take you seriously now?

          Charles P: As Gluadys recently pointed out, all living species share 100%
          of the same amino acids. If that helps your philosophy of the
          interrelationship of all species, I can respect that. The only evidence for
          "descent with limited modification" is the same evidence that believers in
          the "current theory" are using as evidence. As soon as you find an example
          of a living species evolving to form two or more species that DO NOT look
          like their ancestors, please share it with us. That same day I will admit
          here on the forum that I was incorrect in my conclusions.

          D R Lindberg: Just what "physical evidence from ancient times" is it not
          consistent with? All you seem to have is a couple of cases of supposedly
          ambivalent or inadequate evidence, not contrary evidence. You can believe
          anything you like, but if you want to convince anyone else, you will have to
          provide concrete coherent evidence.

          Charles P: The physical evidence from ancient times concludes that there is
          no consensus among scientists describing one older ancient fossil species as
          the ancestor of two or more younger ancient fossil species. In my opinion,
          the "current theory" needs to be updated to reflect what is scientifically
          known about ancient life. It is known that living fossil species have
          ancient fossil evidence showing limited modification when compared to their
          ancestors. Of the three possibilities, these examples are our best evidence
          for the diversity of life since ancient times.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Roy Stanford
          DR, you said ; The question under consideration is how do we explain the diversity among living things on earth. After months of back and forth, you have
          Message 4 of 7 , Jul 3, 2011
            DR, you said ;
            ''The question under consideration is how do we explain the diversity
            among living things on earth.''
            After months of back and forth, you have finally understood the question. Maybe
            instead of interminable arguments getting nowhere, you could answer this
            question, then we could all crawl back to our caves.






            ________________________________
            From: D R Lindberg <dr.lindberg@...>
            To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
            Sent: Fri, July 1, 2011 1:10:07 PM
            Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Has universal common descent been falsified?



            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > D R Lindberg: By the way, when are you going to answer the questions
            I
            > asked you a couple of days ago?
            >
            > Charles P: My apologies. Please repeat the questions.
            >
            I'll do better than that. I'll repeat your responses as well, and try to
            explain why they are not adequate answers.

            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...>
            wrote:
            >
            > D R Lindberg: Are you accusing Horner of being biased? In what way?
            What
            > evidence do you have for this accusation? Why do you think it is good
            for a
            > scientist to be biased?
            >
            > Charles P: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/biased "tending
            to
            > yield one outcome more frequently than others in a statistical
            experiment".
            > Being biased is probably the best reason to do an experiment. I like
            > Horner and I hope that he is successful in his "dino-chicken"
            research. If
            > he believed that dinosaurs magically appeared on Earth, I do not
            believe
            > that he would even bother to do any research. I am biased. I
            believe that
            > there is a scientific description for the diversity of life. I am
            biased in
            > favor of doing any research that leads student to understand better
            the
            > description for the diversity of life.
            >
            > Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cladistics Willi Henning was
            > biased when he founded cladistics. I am glad that he developed a
            systematic
            > method to classify the millions of species known to scientists.
            Surely he
            > must have believed in the concept of common ancestry. If not, he
            probably
            > would never have developed phylogenetic systematics.
            >
            You seem to be talking around my question instead of answering it. The
            definition you give refers to statistical methods, not to people. You
            merely state that Horner and now Henning are biased, without providing
            any evidence. Unless you mean they are biased in favour of finding
            truthful and accurate answers to questions?

            > D R Lindberg: It is not OK to disagree before understanding. All I
            can say
            > is that your comments do not seem to make sense, but do seem to be
            > contradicted by the very evidence that you present.
            >
            > Charles P: I truly appreciate your asking questions. I learn by my
            > mistakes. Please help me to learn more. Disagreement BEFORE
            understanding
            > is OK with me. It shows that we often have a preconceived bias and
            have
            > formed incorrect conclusions. The challenging of those ideas usually
            > results in one of two possible outcomes: we realize that the first
            > conclusion was "tentative" and "not reliable" or we realize that our
            > improved understanding makes that first conclusion seem "reliable" and
            "not
            > tentative".
            >

            More fog, rather than light.

            It seems to me that before I understand something, all I can say is I
            don't know. It doesn't make any sense to say I disagree when I don't
            understand what it is I am disagreeing with, any more that it would make
            sense to say I agree when I don't understand what I'm agreeing with.

            Asitawa, ame ga futte imasita.

            Or how about:

            Ana Nevukhadnatser shleh khaveit bveiti.

            Do you agree or disagree with these statements?

            > D R Lindberg: If the system makes sense of the evidence, what is your
            > complaint? Again you are giving more weight to your own prejudices
            that to
            > the experience and work of hundreds of scientists. Have you considered
            > the possibility that your prejudices or else your understanding
            > of cladistics may be in error?
            >
            > Charles P: Maybe you are correct. Please show me the errors. I
            learn by
            > my mistakes.
            >
            You should really talk to someone who knows more about it than I do, and
            who can explain things clearly.

            Cladistics seems to be of putting a lot of information together in a way
            that makes it easier and clearer to see trends and perhaps problems
            (perhaps something like those charts we often see of the stock market,
            going up and down, with lots of squiggles, but generally trending upward
            - one stock or a number of stocks might go up on a day when the general
            trend is down, so won't necessarily be seen, but that doesn't mean that
            the whole chart is wrong).

            It is only a way of putting information together so that it can be
            further tested. You seem to think of it as some sort of independent
            science with no relation to reality.

            > D R Lindberg: Let's see if I understand your thinking, since you
            don't seem
            > to want to explain it clearly. When you talk about "descent with
            limited
            > modification," I understand that you mean that ALL species alive today
            and
            > ALL species that have gone extinct were all in existence "from
            > the beginning." Is this a correct interpretation of your ideas?
            >
            > Charles P: Yes. Keep that interpretation in mind as you do your own
            > research. If I am wrong, you will find the evidence to contradict
            that
            > interpretation. The best examples are the living fossils. I do not
            want to
            > speculate about when each species appeared on Earth, but billions of
            years
            > ago is OK with me if the Cyanobacteria have been evolving for billions
            of
            > years. Research on the living fossils does not give us any clues as
            to
            > which species appeared first.
            >
            Here you seem to be pulling back from your claim. If you are not willing
            to "speculate about when each species appeared on Earth," what on earth
            is the purpose of your theory? What does it explain?

            The question under consideration is how do we explain the diversity
            among living things on earth. Your alternative explanation now appears
            to be an evasion of the question.

            Even if we agree that all present-day species have been on earth since
            the beginning, we have still not explained why or how they got there.
            What was the cause of this diversity?

            Actually, research on living organisms can give clues as to when they
            arose, through what geneticists call "molecular clocks."

            Just a bit more evidence you are going to have to dump overboard.

            > D R Lindberg: If so, this idea leads to several questions: Just when
            was
            > "the beginning?" Do you mean the beginning of the universe some 13 or
            14
            > billion years ago, or the beginning of the earth some 4.54 billion
            years
            > ago, or the beginnings of life as currently understood by
            paleontologists
            > perhaps 3.5 billion years ago? Or do you believe, like some Hindus,
            that
            > there was no beginning, and the universe, the earth and life have
            always
            > existed?
            >
            > Charles P: The physical evidence shows that life on Earth appeared
            for the
            > first time billions of years ago. I have found no evidence that would
            > suggest otherwise. What the Hindus believe is philosophy. I am OK
            with
            > people having their own philosophy. My only interest is a scientific
            > description of the diversity of life.
            >
            See above.

            > D R Lindberg: Were "modern" humans around from the beginning, however
            you
            > define it?
            >
            > Charles P: Thank you, again, for asking. You inspired me to
            thoroughly
            > examine the evidence for the Laetoli footprints. Do you remember my
            March
            > 22, 2011, post "Who really made the Laetoli Footprints 3.6 million
            years
            > ago? What really impressed me is the fact that there are no
            > Australopithecus afarensis fossil feet among the bones of A. afarensis
            > fossils and the Laetoli footprints definitely look human. If I were a
            > "current theory" scientist, I would have concluded that the dating of
            the
            > footprints was in error. However, when one new "human-like" foot bone
            was
            > found in Ethiopia, again the "current theory" scientists were certain
            that
            > the dating of that fossil foot bone was accurate. If all of this
            evidence
            > is reliable, it looks like humans were in Laetoli 3.6 million years
            ago.
            > Believers in the "current theory" say that is impossible because
            humans had
            > not evolved yet. An open minded person uses this interpretation and
            begins
            > searching for evidence to contradict the interpretation. This is what
            I am
            > hoping that you and others will do. As I said, I learn by my
            mistakes.
            >

            Again, I don't see what that has to do with my question. What evidence
            do you have that modern humans, and all other of the millions of modern
            species, have been around for billions of years? Just finding a few of
            what you think are inconsistencies in evidence for other people's
            propositions does not constitute evidence for yours.

            > D R Lindberg: Why are the patterns in which fossils are found within
            the
            > geological record so different from what would be expected if all
            species
            > had
            > always existed? Paleontologists tell us that 99.9% of all species are
            > extinct.
            >
            > Where fossils are found: http://paleo.cc/kpaleo/fossfind.htm
            > 1 Most fossils are found in sedimentary rock, which is the most
            common type
            > of rock on earth. Sedimentary rocks form when particles of sediment
            are
            > deposited by water or wind, and then (in most cases) hardened or
            > consolidated through time.
            > 2 Occasionally fossils occur in materials other than sedimentary
            rock, such
            > as ancient tree resin (amber), in which insects or other small animals
            > became stuck and entombed. Similarly, bones of mammoths, saber-tooth
            cats,
            > and other extinct animals have been found in tar pits, in which
            unfortunate
            > animals became trapped and mired. Fossils in amber or tar are often
            > preserved with extreme detail.
            >
            Why are no dinosaurs found in those tar pits. Why are no modern humans
            or parts thereof (say, their hair, or toenail clippings, or
            fingerprints) found in that amber?

            > Charles P: A simplistic view might conclude that the farther
            scientists go
            > back in time, they find "simpler" fossils; the more "advanced" species
            are
            > more recent. No one can conclude much from "missing" fossils.

            Why not? All you have to base your "theory" on is the hope that billions
            of fossils will be found that contradict the present theory. Hope is not
            evidence.

            If you believe in God, you must believe that He is a complete fraudster,
            only allowing us to find evidence that is leading us so badly astray.

            > All of
            > life's diversity can be grouped into one of these three groups:
            > 1 Living species with no ancient fossils discovered yet.
            > 2 Living fossils with some ancient fossils discovered.
            > 3 Extinct fossils with no living species discovered yet and no known
            > immediate ancestor nor known immediate decendents.
            >
            Reality can be divided up in many ways. Many people seem to divide
            humanity into those who agree with "me" (whoever "me" happens to be) and
            everybody else, and then claim that all those other billions of humans
            have no other interest or concern in life than to engage in some sort of
            super conspiracy to deceive me and my little group.

            We divide animal life into "humans" and "animals," meaning all others. I
            imagine cats would divide animal life into cats (their particular
            species) and all others, grouping us humans in together with the lions
            and tigers, just as we put monkeys and apes in with the cats and dogs.
            And someone from Mars would probably put us all into the same category.

            So reality can be divided into ways that make sense to an outside
            observer and ways that don't.

            What is your justification for your particular grouping?

            > Charles P: Fossils of mammoths or saber-tooth cats trapped in tar
            could
            > not escape. Insects trapped in amber could not escape. "Advanced"
            species
            > could move away and not be trapped in sediment BEFORE it became rock.
            > "Simple" species could not move away to avoid being trapped in
            sediment
            > BEFORE it became rock. Fossils or footprints trapped by falling
            volcanic
            > ash are very rare. I read somewhere that there are more
            paleontologists
            > than there are fossil sites.
            >
            Insects, mammoths and saber-toothed cats ARE advanced species. Fossils
            are normally formed by creatures than become trapped in sediment after
            they are dead, when it's a bit difficult to move away - although fossils
            often show signs of having been torn apart by animals or fast-moving
            water.

            Or did all those long-ago humans and other species you are hypothesizing
            all live forever?

            What about plants? Plants and especially plant pollen fossilize and are
            very common in rock of the appropriate age. If present-day plants were
            in existence from the beginning, is it not strange that none of their
            pollen is found in those old rocks, since pollen will pervade
            everything, as anyone with allergies can tell you.

            > D R Lindberg: This means that, if they all existed from the
            beginning,
            > there were at one time 1000 times as many species on earth as there
            are at
            > present. Since they all require vastly differing environments in order
            to
            > survive, how was there enough space and enough variety of environments
            on
            > the earth at one time (ice ages and extreme heat, atmospheric oxygen
            varying
            > from near zero to the present 21%, to name just two of the many
            factors
            > that have varied over time)? How do you suggest that polar bears,
            > dinosaurs, moose, alligators,wooly mammoths, rattlesnakes, penguins,
            monarch
            > butterflies, mountain goats, archaeopteryx, jaguars, pandas,
            pterodactyls,
            > giant sloths, frogs, kangaroos, walruses, camels, snails, gila
            monsters, all
            > species of early hominids, cactus, water lilies, palm trees, giant
            mosses,
            > spruce and baobab could have all lived together in the same climate,
            since
            > this is the sort of mishmash that your idea implies, isn't it? Every
            square
            > metre would have to have the same amount of diversity that we now find
            only
            > in the Amazon jungles.
            >
            > Charles P: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum#Biogenic_theory
            Maybe
            > the biogenic theory of Georg Bauer in 1546 was correct? The fossil
            fuels of
            > today are probably millions of year old.

            According to your theory, some of these fossil fuels at least should be
            billions of years old. Where have they been found?

            I don't find anything about Georg Bauer's theory on that page. Please
            explain the theory and its relevance.

            > http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html Radioactive carbon-14 in
            coal
            > deposits seem to indicate an age of around 40,000 years, not the 300
            million
            > years claimed by some scientists. Maybe radiometric dating methods
            used by
            > "current theory" scientists are "tentative" and "not reliable"?
            Remember
            > that Pasha and I discussed this fully several months ago when I
            brought up
            > the concept of "precise" but "not accurate"?
            >
            Your own reference explains why that 40,000 year figure is wrong.

            It sounds like in order to support your theory, which has no evidence,
            you want to throw out again another theory that has plenty of evidence.
            Please explain why this is a rational way to proceed?

            > D R Lindberg: Why are the DNA patterns that seem to show genetic
            > relationships almost identical to those indicated by morphological
            > similarities so deceptive? Please answer these questions, so we can
            begin
            > to try understanding your thoughts. Thank you!
            >
            > Charles P: The only way to determine ancestry correctly is with
            physical
            > DNA evidence. Please keep this in mind as you do your research. The
            > genomes reported in the last decade are not yet sufficient evidence to
            > conclude much about the ancient diversity of life. I am biased. I
            believe
            > in limited evolution. I believe in descent with limited modification.
            I
            > believe that if scientists could somehow travel back in time that they
            would
            > see "look alike" ancestors of present day species. However, I have an
            open
            > mind. Go ahead; put something in it. Please show me some physical
            evidence
            > that contradicts my conclusions. It is OK to disagree. However, I
            hope
            > that anyone who disagrees with me will make side-by-side comparisons
            with
            > scientific evidence for the diversity of life.
            >
            Just why does the fact that we share 99% of our genome (physical DNA
            evidence) with chimps NOT constitute "sufficient evidence" that we are
            more closely related to them than we are to some organism with which we
            share say 49% of our genome?

            You not only have no evidence for your theory of limited evolution, but
            you also have no theoretical basis for it either, at least none that you
            have shared with us. Where is this limitation? What causes it?

            If people can walk across the room, given enough time people can walk
            around the world (I once read a book by someone who claimed to be the
            first to ride a motorcycle around the world. He says that while going
            through Turkey, he met a man with a big sign, "First Man to Walk Around
            the World Backwards!"). People have even rowed boats across the
            Atlantic, and it seems to me the Pacific as well.

            So if organisms can evolved a little bit in a short time, why couldn't
            they evolve a lot in a long time? This is a question that creationists
            and ID-types have been asked time and again, and no one has ever
            suggested a shadow of an answer, so why should we take you seriously
            now?

            > Charles P: I believe that the "current theory" of evolution is not
            > consistent with physical evidence from ancient times and is no longer
            a
            > respectable theory describing the diversity of ancient life. I
            believe that
            > the "current theory" of evolution is valuable for describing the
            diversity
            > of recent and future life, but needs to be updated to reflect what is
            > scientifically known about ancient life.
            >
            Just what "physical evidence from ancient times" is it not consistent
            with? All you seem to have is a couple of cases of supposedly ambivalent
            or inadequate evidence, not contrary evidence.

            You can believe anything you like, but if you want to convince anyone
            else, you will have to provide concrete coherent evidence.

            Cheers!

            If a high school student was to write a book about advanced neuron
            structures of the human mind, would you consider that book fact?
            That's what creationists are doing, writing books without research.
            Since they write for quantity, they hide the fact that they aren't
            really making any points or presenting evidence.
            - Biologist, http://www.christianforums.com/t3730398&page=3
            <http://www.christianforums.com/t3730398&page=3>

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.