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

Selection Has Never Led To Formation Of A New Species (References #1075, #1076-1078)

Expand Messages
  • Charles Palm
    Larry Moran: http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/view/125/135 Shapiro believes that genomic rearrangements, especially whole genome duplications,
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 13, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Larry Moran: http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/view/125/135
      Shapiro
      believes that genomic rearrangements, especially whole genome duplications,
      are extremely important in evolution. So important, in fact, that he can
      draw the following conclusion: “It is important to note that selection has
      never led to formation of a new species, as Darwin postulated” (page 121).
      Does he mean that random genetic drift could play an important role in
      speciation—a fact discussed in most evolution textbooks? No, he doesn’t
      mean that at all, because he appears to have never heard of random genetic
      drift as a mechanism of evolution. He means that species form by
      hybridization and genome duplications. This is the view promoted by Lynn
      Margulis and Dorion Sagan in their book Acquiring Genomes (2002). (Not
      cited by Shapiro.)

      Charles P: Why does Larry Moran want you to believe that Shapiro "appears
      to have never heard of random genetic drift"? Why does Larry Moran want
      you to believe that Shapiro did not cite the views promoted by Lynn
      Margulis? Verify for yourselves that the research of Lynn Margulis is
      cited many times? Maybe Moran thought that you would just have faith that
      he is telling the truth and not verify it for yourselves. Moran did not
      provide any empirical and verifiable evidence to contradict the writings of
      Shapiro. Then, verify for yourselves the evidence that supports the
      conclusion that "selection has never led to formation of a new species",
      contrary to what Darwin postulated. Reference #1088: In a letter to his
      friend, the botanist J.D. Hooker, on July 22, 1879, Darwin called the rapid
      diversification of flowering plants (angiosperms) in the fossil record of
      the Lower Cretaceous “an abominable mystery”.

      Charles P: Please verify for yourselves that Shapiro cited the ideas of
      Lynn Margulis eleven times in his book. Please verify for yourselves that
      the evidence supports the natural genetic engineering principle that
      "selection has never let to formation of a new species" twelve times in his
      book.

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

      Evolution: A View From The 21st Century, by James A Shapiro.

      1 Lynn Margulis: “This moving, clearly written, if complex, description
      of ‘natural genetic engineering’ explains evolutionary processes that
      preceded people by at least 3,000 million years. Shapiro’s detailed account
      of ubiquitous genetic dynamism, DNA machination, repair, and recombination
      in real life, bacterial to mammalian, destroys myths. Genes, whatever they
      are, are not ‘eternal.’... Shapiro’s careful, authoritative narrative...is
      entirely scientific and should interest all of us who care about the
      evolution of genetic systems.”

      2 James A Shapiro: Among the other colleagues who were not direct
      collaborators but who helped form my views about conceptual developments in
      biology and details of genome changes, I have to single out... Lynn
      Margulis.

      3 References #688, #879: Since the 1960s, Lynn Margulis, an irrepressible
      publisher of articles and books on this theme, has championed the
      importance of symbiogenesis as a primary source of evolutionary inventions.

      4 References #152, #880-882: Margulis has applied the idea of
      endosymbiotic origins to include key eukaryotic organelles—in particular,
      the microtubule-based cilia and mitotic spindle.

      5 Reference #884: The only genomics-based method to confirm Margulis’
      hypothesis is to establish multiple clear relationships between the
      sequences of proteins from the organelle and a putative prokaryotic
      ancestor. The one detailed analysis carried out to date has failed to find
      prokaryotic homologies with the corresponding eukaryotic proteins.

      6 Reference #688: Margulis, L. Symbiosis and evolution. Sci Am 225, 48-57
      (1971).

      7 Reference #839. Margulis, L., Chapman, M., Guerrero, R. and Hall, J. The
      last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA): acquisition of cytoskeletal
      motility from aerotolerant spirochetes in the Proterozoic Eon. Proc Natl
      Acad Sci USA 103, 13080-5 (2006).

      8 Reference #879. Margulis, L. Symbiosis in Cell Evolution, (W.H. Freeman
      Co, London, 1981).

      9 Reference #880. Dolan, M.F., Melnitsky, H., Margulis, L. and Kolnicki,
      R. Motility proteins and the origin of the nucleus. Anat Rec 268, 290-301
      (2002).

      10 Reference #881. Chapman, M.J., Dolan, M.F. and Margulis, L. Centrioles
      and kinetosomes: form, function, and evolution. Q Rev Biol 75, 409-29
      (2000).

      11 Reference #882. Margulis, L., Dolan, M.F. and Guerrero, R. The chimeric
      eukaryote: origin of the nucleus from the karyomastigont in amitochondriate
      protists. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 97, 6954-9 (2000).

      Charles P: Moran did not provide any empirical and verifiable evidence to
      contradict Shapiro's writings. Why would Moran make claims to contradict
      Shapiro's writings? It is OK to disagree, but it would seem that a science
      writer would present empirical and verifiable evidence that could be
      repeated by others.

      Characteristics of science:
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/nature_06 To ask someone
      to accept ideas purely on faith, even when these ideas are expressed by
      "experts," is unscientific.

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

      Charles P: What is the evidence for "selection has never led to formation
      of a new species"?

      1 References #1075, #1076-1078: It is important to note that selection
      has never led to formation of a new species, as Darwin postulated. No
      matter how morphologically and behaviorally different they become, all dogs
      remain members of the same species, are capable of interbreeding with other
      dogs, and will revert in a few generations to a common feral dog phenotype
      if allowed to go wild. The way we make new species synthetically is
      by interspecific hybridization. The importance of
      interspecific hybridization has been mentioned by many early
      evolutionists, including Lamarck, and is documented in the scientific
      literature back at least to the 19th Century. The cereal plant Triticale
      was created in this way by crossing wheat (Triticum) and rye (Secale); it
      is currently cultivated in Europe and China.

      2 References #643, #1079, #1080: The most important proponent of what he
      called cataclysmic evolution was plant cytogeneticist and evolutionist G.
      Ledyard Stebbins. He studied plants of the mustard family (Brassica)
      and demonstrated that interspecific hybridization led to the formation
      of new species (such as mustard greens or rapeseed) with chromosome numbers
      equal to the sum of both parental genomes (
      http://www.answers.com/topic/g-ledyard-stebbins).

      3 Reference #1081: Similar experiments were performed in the 1920s by
      Nikolai Vavilov and his student Georgy Karpechenko in the Soviet Union
      before Lysenkoism decimated Soviet genetics (M. Golubovsky, personal
      communication).

      4 Reference #1082: Chromosome doubling occurs with interspecific
      hybridization because hybrids without WGD cannot go through meiosis and
      therefore are sterile. Sometimes, as with crosses to produce new
      Triticale hybrids, the parental genomes are artificially doubled
      before hybridization by treating the plants with colchicine, a
      microtubule inhibitor that blocks chromosome separation in meiosis. But the
      formation of diploid gametes with doubled genomes is common (occurring in
      about 1% of all mouse fertilizations).

      5 Reference #1083: As a consequence, hybrids with doubled genomes can
      form naturally at reasonably high frequency. In Arabidopsis interspecific
      hybrids, about 25% underwent spontaneous chromosome doubling and were
      fertile.

      6 References #1084-1087: It is clear from genomic analysis what Stebbins
      and other plant breeders have long known—that hybridization and genome
      duplication have been the sources of new plant species. Similar speciation
      events resulting from interspecific hybridization have been observed in
      butterflies, moths, and other animals .

      7 Reference #1088: In a letter to his friend, the botanist J.D. Hooker,
      on July 22, 1879, Darwin called the rapid diversification of flowering
      plants (angiosperms) in the fossil record of the Lower Cretaceous “an
      abominable mystery”.

      8 References #1089-1092: It is now clear that a series of WGD
      events played repeated roles in angiosperm evolution.

      9 References #1093-1096: Rapid plant evolution was “abominable” to Darwin
      because formation of interspecific hybrids and genome doubling are the
      kinds of sudden, genome-wide changes affecting multiple characters that he
      explicitly excluded from his gradualist, uniformitarian thinking. In
      addition to flowering plants and vertebrates, we know that WGDs have played
      a role in the evolution of fungi and protozoa.

      10 References #1097, #1098: It is likely that even more instances of WGD
      at major evolutionary junctures will be documented as more
      eukaryotic genomes are sequenced. One of the most significant features
      of WGD events is that they produce two copies of the dispersed genome
      regions that encode complex networks.

      11 References #1099, #1100: Having an extra copy of the entire network
      means that no functionality is lost if one copy of the network is modified
      to change its inputs, outputs, and/or internal operation. The fact that
      intracellular signaling networks, for example, have been adapted to many
      different cellular and developmental functions indicates that, in the
      course of evolution, they have been duplicated and modified to meet new
      adaptive needs.

      12 It makes sense to believe that this kind of whole-network adaptation is
      significantly easier to execute in an organism that has a recently
      duplicated genome than in one where every network is unique and fulfills an
      important functional requirement. There is a striking and highly
      significant connection between what we have learned about the molecular
      basis of genome change and the role of WGDs in evolutionary history.
      Formation of interspecific hybrids and changes in ploidy are
      well-documented genome shocks that lead to the disruption of epigenetic
      control on mobile genetic elements in both plants and animals. This
      accounts for the numerous cases where these elements have played important
      roles in evolutionary change (see Table III.2). The potential for
      life-historybased control over the occurrence of hereditary variation is
      one of the most trenchant and fundamental differences between the 21st
      Century view of genome change resulting from a constellation of regulated
      cell functions (natural genetic engineering) and the traditional view that
      genome change results from random and accidental events. Part IV of this
      book explores some of the deeper conceptual implications of this difference.

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

      Charles P: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29246 If
      anyone has empirical and verifiable evidence that can be tested and
      verified by others concerning the nine basic principles of natural genetic
      engineering, please share them with us here on Origins Talk.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • gluadys
      ... Since you have read Shapiro s book, Charles, why don t you look up genetic drift in the index and then cite what Shapiro says about it? This would be
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 13, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
        >
        > Larry Moran: http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/view/125/135
        > Shapiro
        > believes that genomic rearrangements, especially whole genome duplications,
        > are extremely important in evolution. So important, in fact, that he can
        > draw the following conclusion: “It is important to note that selection has
        > never led to formation of a new species, as Darwin postulated” (page 121).
        > Does he mean that random genetic drift could play an important role in
        > speciationâ€"a fact discussed in most evolution textbooks? No, he doesn’t
        > mean that at all, because he appears to have never heard of random genetic
        > drift as a mechanism of evolution. He means that species form by
        > hybridization and genome duplications. This is the view promoted by Lynn
        > Margulis and Dorion Sagan in their book Acquiring Genomes (2002). (Not
        > cited by Shapiro.)
        >
        > Charles P: Why does Larry Moran want you to believe that Shapiro "appears
        > to have never heard of random genetic drift"?
        >

        Since you have read Shapiro's book, Charles, why don't you look up "genetic drift" in the index and then cite what Shapiro says about it? This would be proof that, contrary to Moran's impression, Shapiro is cognizant of genetic drift.



        > Why does Larry Moran want
        > you to believe that Shapiro did not cite the views promoted by Lynn
        > Margulis? Verify for yourselves that the research of Lynn Margulis is
        > cited many times?


        Moran doesn't say that Shapiro never cited Margulis. He says Shapiro never cited the book she co-authored with Dorion Sagan.


        "[Shapiro] means that species form by hybridization and genome
        duplications. This is the view promoted by Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan in their book
        Acquiring Genomes (2002). (Not cited by Shapiro.)"


        > Moran did not
        > provide any empirical and verifiable evidence to contradict the writings of
        > Shapiro. Then, verify for yourselves the evidence that supports the
        > conclusion that "selection has never led to formation of a new species",
        > contrary to what Darwin postulated.


        A bit of a distinction here. Moran quotes Shapiro as saying "selection never led to formation of a new species, as Darwin postulated."

        But you have changed that to "selection never led to formation of a new species" contrary to what Darwin postulated.

        You may not have intended a significant change in meaning, but you have created one. Your truncated citation suggests that selection never created a species by any means. Shapiro only suggests that selection doesn't work as Darwin postulated--not that it never leads to the formation of a new species. For example, a new species formed by genome duplication or hybridization, still needs the support of natural selection for success.

        In any case, no scientist would disagree today that many of the mechanisms of evolution were not envisaged by Darwin. How could they be?
      • Charles Palm
        Gluadys: Since you have read Shapiro s book, Charles, why don t you look up genetic drift in the index and then cite what Shapiro says about it? This would
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 14, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          Gluadys: Since you have read Shapiro's book, Charles, why don't you look
          up "genetic drift" in the index and then cite what Shapiro says about it?
          This would be proof that, contrary to Moran's impression, Shapiro is
          cognizant of genetic drift.

          Charles P: Shapiro did not mention the exact words "genetic drift".
          Shapiro did not mention "macroevolution" in his book, either. However,
          Shapiro's references #864 and #1035 cited "macroevolution". My question is
          still valid: Why does Larry Moran want you to believe that Shapiro "appears
          to have never heard of random genetic drift"?

          Gluadys: Moran doesn't say that Shapiro never cited Margulis. He says
          Shapiro never cited the book she co-authored with Dorion Sagan.

          Charles P: Shapiro never cited a book co-authored with Larry Moran,
          either. Shapiro cited J.V. Moran in his references #221, #514, and #749.
          Shapiro cited R.G. and Christie Moran in his reference #716. Why is this
          "distinction without a difference" important to you, Gluadys, and important
          to Larry Moran? Isn't this the same as what you call a red herring?

          Red herring: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Red+herring The
          rhetorical or literary tactic of diverting attention away from an item of
          significance.

          Gluadys: A bit of a distinction here. Moran quotes Shapiro as saying
          "selection never led to formation of a new species, as Darwin postulated."
          But you have changed that to "selection never led to formation of a new
          species" contrary to what Darwin postulated. You may not have intended a
          significant change in meaning, but you have created one. Your truncated
          citation suggests that selection never created a species by any means.
          Shapiro only suggests that selection doesn't work as Darwin postulated--not
          that it never leads to the formation of a new species. For example, a new
          species formed by genome duplication or hybridization, still needs the
          support of natural selection for success. In any case, no scientist would
          disagree today that many of the mechanisms of evolution were not envisaged
          by Darwin. How could they be?

          Charles P: To form a new species, genome duplication or hybridization must
          preexist selection. Selection is a purifying force, not a creative force.
          The 20th Century version of The Theory of Evolution was necessary to set
          the direction for biological research. The 21st Century version of The
          Theory of Evolution is providing us with the empirical and verifiable
          evidence for the description for the origin and diversity of life.

          Charles P: I apologize for any confusion. I was trying to make sure that
          the average reader is aware of the empirical and verifiable evidence. The
          references cited by Shapiro clearly support the conclusion that "selection
          has never led to formation of a new species".

          Charles P: I always accept a science writer's conclusions as axiomatic.
          Then I want to know "why" and "how".

          1 "Why" do some science writers want us to believe that "selection alone"
          has led to formation of a new species?

          2 What are the empirical and verifiable data that can be tested and
          reproduced by others supporting the claim that "selection alone" acting
          upon random mutations has led to formation of a new species? Shapiro has
          empirical and verifiable evidence that "living organisms actively change
          themselves" and then selection can act upon those changes.

          3 "How" could "selection alone" lead to the formation of a new species?

          James A Shapiro: How does novelty arise in evolution? Innovation, not
          selection, is the critical issue in evolutionary change. Without variation
          and novelty, selection has nothing to act upon. So this book is dedicated
          to considering the many ways that living organisms actively change
          themselves.


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • gluadys
          ... Given that Shapiro never mentions genetic drift--not even one reference in the index--is there any evidence he has heard of it? Not discussing something
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 15, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
            >
            > Gluadys: Since you have read Shapiro's book, Charles, why don't you look
            > up "genetic drift" in the index and then cite what Shapiro says about it?
            > This would be proof that, contrary to Moran's impression, Shapiro is
            > cognizant of genetic drift.
            >
            > Charles P: Shapiro did not mention the exact words "genetic drift".
            > Shapiro did not mention "macroevolution" in his book, either. However,
            > Shapiro's references #864 and #1035 cited "macroevolution". My question is
            > still valid: Why does Larry Moran want you to believe that Shapiro "appears
            > to have never heard of random genetic drift"?
            >

            Given that Shapiro never mentions genetic drift--not even one reference in the index--is there any evidence he has heard of it? Not discussing something relevant to one's topic might give the impression one has not heard of it, right?



            > Gluadys: Moran doesn't say that Shapiro never cited Margulis. He says
            > Shapiro never cited the book she co-authored with Dorion Sagan.
            >
            > Charles P: Shapiro never cited a book co-authored with Larry Moran,
            > either.
            >

            Did Shapiro discuss original ideas Moran brought to public notice in a well-known book? If not, there is no need for him to cite Moran.

            But he makes generous use of Margulis ideas with no reference to the book which she most fully explains them. Isn't that shortchanging both her and his readers?



            >
            >Shapiro cited J.V. Moran in his references #221, #514, and #749.
            > Shapiro cited R.G. and Christie Moran in his reference #716. Why is this
            > "distinction without a difference" important to you, Gluadys, and important
            > to Larry Moran? Isn't this the same as what you call a red herring?
            >


            What is important to me is that you not lie about people. You claimed that Moran said Shapiro did not cite Margulis but Shapiro did. However, Moran did not say what you claimed he said Moran said Shapiro did not cite Margulis' major work "Acquiring Genomes".

            Have you found "Acquiring Genomes" in Shapiro's bibliography, index or footnotes? If not, Moran's statement is correct.



            >
            > Gluadys: A bit of a distinction here. Moran quotes Shapiro as saying
            > "selection never led to formation of a new species, as Darwin postulated."
            > But you have changed that to "selection never led to formation of a new
            > species" contrary to what Darwin postulated. You may not have intended a
            > significant change in meaning, but you have created one. Your truncated
            > citation suggests that selection never created a species by any means.
            > Shapiro only suggests that selection doesn't work as Darwin postulated--not
            > that it never leads to the formation of a new species. For example, a new
            > species formed by genome duplication or hybridization, still needs the
            > support of natural selection for success. In any case, no scientist would
            > disagree today that many of the mechanisms of evolution were not envisaged
            > by Darwin. How could they be?
            >
            > Charles P: To form a new species, genome duplication or hybridization must
            > preexist selection.



            Not necessarily. These are two possible mechanisms that might lead to a new species, but they are not the only ones.




            >
            > Charles P: I apologize for any confusion. I was trying to make sure that
            > the average reader is aware of the empirical and verifiable evidence. The
            > references cited by Shapiro clearly support the conclusion that "selection
            > has never led to formation of a new species".
            >


            But that is still not what Shapiro said. He said, "selection never led to formation of a new species, as Darwin postulated."

            So he is still leaving open the door to selection leading to the formation of a new species in a way the Darwin did not postulate.




            >
            > 1 "Why" do some science writers want us to believe that "selection alone"
            > has led to formation of a new species?
            >

            No one I know of claims that selection alone has led to the formation of a new species. Asking a question like this is equivalent to the proverbial "When did you stop beating your wife?" directed to a man who has never beaten her at all. The question contains a false accusation.

            Same goes for the followup questions.


            >Innovation, not
            > selection, is the critical issue in evolutionary change.


            No one disputes the importance of innovation. But without selection, innovation would not produce evolutionary change either.
          • Charles Palm
            Gluadys: Given that Shapiro never mentions genetic drift--not even one reference in the index--is there any evidence he has heard of it? Not discussing
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 16, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              Gluadys: Given that Shapiro never mentions genetic drift--not even one
              reference in the index--is there any evidence he has heard of it? Not
              discussing something relevant to one's topic might give the impression one
              has not heard of it, right? Did Shapiro discuss original ideas Moran
              brought to public notice in a well-known book? If not, there is no need for
              him to cite Moran. But he makes generous use of Margulis ideas with no
              reference to the book which she most fully explains them. Isn't that
              shortchanging both her and his readers? What is important to me is that
              you not lie about people. You claimed that Moran said Shapiro did not cite
              Margulis but Shapiro did. However, Moran did not say what you claimed he
              said Moran said Shapiro did not cite Margulis' major work "Acquiring
              Genomes". Have you found "Acquiring Genomes" in Shapiro's bibliography,
              index or footnotes? If not, Moran's statement is correct.

              Charles P: To form a new species, genome duplication or hybridization
              must preexist selection.

              Gluadys: Not necessarily. These are two possible mechanisms that might
              lead to a new species, but they are not the only ones. But that is still
              not what Shapiro said. He said, "selection never led to formation of a new
              species, as Darwin postulated." So he is still leaving open the door to
              selection leading to the formation of a new species in a way the Darwin did
              not postulate. No one I know of claims that selection alone has led to the
              formation of a new species. Asking a question like this is equivalent to
              the proverbial "When did you stop beating your wife?" directed to a man who
              has never beaten her at all. The question contains a false accusation.
              Same goes for the followup questions. No one disputes the importance of
              innovation. But without selection, innovation would not produce
              evolutionary change either.

              Charles P: This is so predictable about your messages. When a person
              knows that their narratives lack the necessary empirical and verifiable
              evidence, they write ad hominem arguments: "What is important to me is that
              you not lie about people".

              Charles P: If you wish to read Evolution: A View From The 21st Century by
              James A Shapiro, you might learn something. If you do not wish to read the
              book, you can continue to reject new ideas. It is your choice. I will not
              discuss it further with you.


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Laurie Appleton
              ... From: gluadys To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 2:26 PM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Selection Has Never Led To Formation Of A
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 16, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: gluadys
                To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 2:26 PM
                Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Selection Has Never Led To Formation Of A New Species (References #1075, #1076-1078)





                > Charles P: To form a new species, genome duplication or hybridization must
                > preexist selection.

                Not necessarily. These are two possible mechanisms that might lead to a new species, but they are not the only ones.

                >
                > Charles P: I apologize for any confusion. I was trying to make sure that
                > the average reader is aware of the empirical and verifiable evidence. The
                > references cited by Shapiro clearly support the conclusion that "selection
                > has never led to formation of a new species".
                >

                But that is still not what Shapiro said. He said, "selection never led to formation of a new species, as Darwin postulated."

                So he is still leaving open the door to selection leading to the formation of a new species in a way the Darwin did not postulate.

                >
                > 1 "Why" do some science writers want us to believe that "selection alone"
                > has led to formation of a new species?
                >

                No one I know of claims that selection alone has led to the formation of a new species. Asking a question like this is equivalent to the proverbial "When did you stop beating your wife?" directed to a man who has never beaten her at all. The question contains a false accusation.

                Same goes for the followup questions.

                >Innovation, not
                > selection, is the critical issue in evolutionary change.

                No one disputes the importance of innovation. But without selection, innovation would not produce evolutionary change either.


                LA> A Nobel Prize winning evolutionist has confessed the following;

                ---------------------------

                Natural selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of
                evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined
                organisms . . . . The struggle for life and elimination of
                the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole
                modern ethics revolts."

                "An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where
                the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the
                so-called natural law.

                I am surprised that a Christian
                would defend the idea that this is the process which God
                more or less set up in order to have evolution."

                (Jacques Monod, "The Secret of Life." transcript of
                television interview with Laurie John, on the Australian
                Broadcasting Co., June 10, 1976. Reprinted in Ex Nihilo
                (Journal of Creation Science Association of Australia)).
                (Evolution in Turmoil, p. 153)

                ===================



                Laurie.

                "We used to have an open mind, now we realise that the only logical answer to life is creation -- not accidental random shuffling." (Chandra Wickramasinghe, ex-atheist Buddhist, 1981)

                ..







                No virus found in this message.
                Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2629/5896 - Release Date: 11/15/12


                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • stewart8724
                Charles P: http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29933 No ad hominem fallacy, please. If you are willing to view and listen to a different
                Message 7 of 8 , Nov 17, 2012
                • 0 Attachment
                  Charles P: http://dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/OriginsTalk/message/29933 No
                  ad hominem fallacy, please. If you are willing to view and listen to a
                  different interpretation of the evidence, you might learn something new.
                  If not, please just delete the following video.

                  Charles P:
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyQahEG1z_A&feature=em-uploademail Here are
                  some important interpretations presented:

                  1 Please notice the real "Lucy" fossil with no hands and no feet compared
                  to the reconstructed version with "assumed hands" and "assumed feet".

                  Stewart: Clearly you think it's a mistake to imagine that Lucy had hands and feet. Possibly you could explain why.
                  Bearing in mind that Lucy is not the only Australopithecus fossil evidence that has been found, would it not be reasonable to expect that one looked generally the same as the others? Why did the film maker feel the need to introduce a scene showing a man (supposedly Lovejoy) tampering with evidence? If you're going to accuse someone of something, accuse them outright. A decent person doesn't make such a cowardly and thinly veiled suggestion.
                  What struck me is that Ian Juby addresses his audience as though it consisted entirely of children. Is there a reason for this do you think? (Is this also why he sounds like Yogi Bear?)


                  2 Please notice the World War II planes buried under 75 meters of ice in
                  Greenland and the "assumption" of annual ice layers.

                  Stewart: The fact of annual ice deposition is just that, it is not an assumption. Ice forms over the course of a year to give an annual layer, it will do the same the following year. The thickness of these layers may vary but they are still annual layers. As for the buried aircraft, it is not only deposition that forms ice, there is also movement by means of glaciation which is capable of transporting surface objects for miles (see drop stones).
                  The thickness of ice above these aircraft does not indicate how long they have been there. The annual layers (like tree rings) gives you this information.


                  3 Please notice the biodiversity in the woolly mammoths' habitat.

                  Stewart: OK so what? There's bio-diversity all over the planet.


                  4 Please notice the "assumptions" about fossil dating methods using carbon
                  isotopes and using oxygen isotopes.

                  Stewart: Maybe you or Juby should tell scientists that they've got it all wrong. First why don't you explain it to me Charles? I don't know how to read oxygen or carbon isotopes and get any useful information, it would be fascinating to learn everything you know about it.


                  Charles P: After viewing and listening, please interpret the evidence
                  according to your own personal philosophies. I will not be discussing your
                  philosophies nor will I respond to ad hominem arguments.

                  Stewart: Having watched and listened to this video it occurs to me that this was not a balanced examination and therefore the information is worthless. Ian Juby is just distributing propaganda here, he did not elicit the views of anyone with an understanding of science, as he should have done if he were delivering an honest and worthwhile expose of the evolutionary argument.
                  There was no evolutionary argument in fact. There was only Mr Juby's opinion of what the evolutionary argument would be, which is of course a distortion of what it actually is.
                  The purpose of this video is to re-enforce the beliefs of the already converted, it is certainly not a scientific examination. All the subjects covered would have required more time to explain them thoroughly, I think the only reason to flit from one issue to the next, spending only the briefest time on each, is to create confusion and give the impression that the creationist message is a straightforward and obvious fact.
                  Cha: "I will not be discussing your philosophies nor will I respond to ad hominem arguments".
                  True to form as ever, you no doubt see this as an excuse not to defend your position. In fact it's a cowardly cop-out since you will simply prescribe all objections as philosophy and ad hominem arguments.


                  Ad hominem argument: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Ad+hominem+argument The
                  phrase denotes an argument designed to appeal to the listener's emotions
                  rather than to reason.

                  Stewart: An 'ad-hominem' is an argument which resorts to an unrelated and irrelevant accusation in order to discredit your opponents case.
                  Example:- "Don't believe a word he tells you about evolution, he's Chinese and you know they eat dogs".
                  If 'ad hominem' meant what you said, ALL creationist arguments would fall into that bracket.


                  Charles P: To form a new species, genome duplication or hybridization
                  must preexist selection.

                  Gluadys: Not necessarily. These are two possible mechanisms that might
                  lead to a new species, but they are not the only ones. But that is still
                  not what Shapiro said. He said, "selection never led to formation of a new
                  species, as Darwin postulated." So he is still leaving open the door to
                  selection leading to the formation of a new species in a way the Darwin did
                  not postulate. No one I know of claims that selection alone has led to the
                  formation of a new species. Asking a question like this is equivalent to
                  the proverbial "When did you stop beating your wife?" directed to a man who
                  has never beaten her at all. The question contains a false accusation.
                  Same goes for the followup questions. No one disputes the importance of
                  innovation. But without selection, innovation would not produce
                  evolutionary change either.

                  Charles P: This is so predictable about your messages. When a person
                  knows that their narratives lack the necessary empirical and verifiable
                  evidence, they write ad hominem arguments: "What is important to me is that
                  you not lie about people".

                  Stewart: You still can't identify an 'ad hominem argument'. Glaudys is discussing a statement made in your post which gave a false impression. That is not an unfair or 'ad hominem' comment, it is a rebuttal of your statement. It is entirely pertinent to the discussion.
                  What you are doing in effect is sticking your thumbs up and saying "keys", in the hope of avoiding any argument at all. In the name of all you consider holy Charles, grow a set.


                  Charles P: If you wish to read Evolution: A View From The 21st Century by
                  James A Shapiro, you might learn something. If you do not wish to read the
                  book, you can continue to reject new ideas. It is your choice. I will not
                  discuss it further with you.

                  Stewart: What else is new?


                  Glaudys:
                  Innovation, not selection, is the critical issue in evolutionary change.

                  No one disputes the importance of innovation. But without selection, innovation would not produce evolutionary change either.

                  LA> A Nobel Prize winning evolutionist has confessed the following;

                  Natural selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of
                  evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined
                  organisms . . . . The struggle for life and elimination of
                  the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole
                  modern ethics revolts."

                  Stewart: It might not seem a very benevolent course for life to take but you can't deny the efficiency of it. It is a horrible process if you look at it on an individual level but, "that's life" as they say.


                  "An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where
                  the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the
                  so-called natural law.

                  Stewart: And where is this society? I've never heard of it, it isn't the one I live in and it's absolutely not the one you live in. We can lie to ourselves and pretend that we are above the laws of nature, we can imagine that we're capable of transcending our animal instincts and achieving a state of altruism and good will to our fellow man. When put in an extreme environment, (a war zone eg.) man will reveal his true nature, and it will be exactly the same as in all other creatures, brutal, selfish and determined to survive at all costs.


                  I am surprised that a Christian
                  would defend the idea that this is the process which God
                  more or less set up in order to have evolution."

                  Stewart: Would it be more in keeping with your version of Christianity for a person to lie in order to promote what they believe is a truth? What does that leave you, other than with a diminished facsimile of what should be a noble philosophy?
                  Your president closed the illegal prison in Cuba when he took office. The reason being that you cannot maintain the pretence of legality while denying it to some, it becomes a lie as plain as the nose on your face.
                  If you sanction the condemnation of Glaudys and those like her for telling the truth, just because the truth is unpalatable, you'll have to be willing to risk spending your life never knowing what is actually true, because that is fascism. Wherever fascism has been imposed there has been resistance to it, as there should be.
                  Christianity is not about knowing what's right. It's about making you better than you are in spite of yourself, and you won't get off to a good start with a lie. If God made the world, he made it as we find it. If you can't accept that, nothing anyone else believes will have any effect on your attempts to reconcile what you find to be true, with what you thought was true.



                  ..

                  --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, Charles Palm <palmcharlesUU@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Gluadys: Given that Shapiro never mentions genetic drift--not even one
                  > reference in the index--is there any evidence he has heard of it? Not
                  > discussing something relevant to one's topic might give the impression one
                  > has not heard of it, right? Did Shapiro discuss original ideas Moran
                  > brought to public notice in a well-known book? If not, there is no need for
                  > him to cite Moran. But he makes generous use of Margulis ideas with no
                  > reference to the book which she most fully explains them. Isn't that
                  > shortchanging both her and his readers? What is important to me is that
                  > you not lie about people. You claimed that Moran said Shapiro did not cite
                  > Margulis but Shapiro did. However, Moran did not say what you claimed he
                  > said Moran said Shapiro did not cite Margulis' major work "Acquiring
                  > Genomes". Have you found "Acquiring Genomes" in Shapiro's bibliography,
                  > index or footnotes? If not, Moran's statement is correct.
                  >
                  > Charles P: To form a new species, genome duplication or hybridization
                  > must preexist selection.
                  >
                  > Gluadys: Not necessarily. These are two possible mechanisms that might
                  > lead to a new species, but they are not the only ones. But that is still
                  > not what Shapiro said. He said, "selection never led to formation of a new
                  > species, as Darwin postulated." So he is still leaving open the door to
                  > selection leading to the formation of a new species in a way the Darwin did
                  > not postulate. No one I know of claims that selection alone has led to the
                  > formation of a new species. Asking a question like this is equivalent to
                  > the proverbial "When did you stop beating your wife?" directed to a man who
                  > has never beaten her at all. The question contains a false accusation.
                  > Same goes for the followup questions. No one disputes the importance of
                  > innovation. But without selection, innovation would not produce
                  > evolutionary change either.
                  >
                  > Charles P: This is so predictable about your messages. When a person
                  > knows that their narratives lack the necessary empirical and verifiable
                  > evidence, they write ad hominem arguments: "What is important to me is that
                  > you not lie about people".
                  >
                  > Charles P: If you wish to read Evolution: A View From The 21st Century by
                  > James A Shapiro, you might learn something. If you do not wish to read the
                  > book, you can continue to reject new ideas. It is your choice. I will not
                  > discuss it further with you.
                  >
                  >
                  > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  >
                • Laurie Appleton
                  ... From: stewart8724 To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 1:36 AM Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Selection Has Never Led To Formation
                  Message 8 of 8 , Nov 17, 2012
                  • 0 Attachment
                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: stewart8724
                    To: OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2012 1:36 AM
                    Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Selection Has Never Led To Formation Of A New Species (References #1075, #1076-1078)



                    Glaudys:
                    Innovation, not selection, is the critical issue in evolutionary change.

                    No one disputes the importance of innovation. But without selection, innovation would not produce evolutionary change either.

                    LA> A Nobel Prize winning evolutionist has confessed the following;
                    ---------------------------

                    Natural selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of
                    evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined
                    organisms . . . . The struggle for life and elimination of
                    the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole
                    modern ethics revolts."
                    ==================

                    Stewart: It might not seem a very benevolent course for life to take but you can't deny the efficiency of it. It is a horrible process if you look at it on an individual level but, "that's life" as they say.

                    "An ideal society is a non-selective society, one where
                    the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the
                    so-called natural law.

                    Stewart: And where is this society? I've never heard of it, it isn't the one I live in and it's absolutely not the one you live in.

                    LA> Thus your comments seem to be pouring scorn on a famous Nobel Prize winning evolutionist and atheist. Jacques Monod!! How strange!


                    Laurie.

                    "Finally, the evolutionary vision is enabling us to discern, however
                    incompletely, the lineaments of the new religion that we can be sure
                    will arise to serve the needs of the coming era."
                    (Sir Julian Huxley famous atheistic evolutionist, 1959)

                    ..




                    No virus found in this message.
                    Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
                    Version: 2013.0.2793 / Virus Database: 2629/5899 - Release Date: 11/16/12


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