Adam. Man or Myth?

[hecd2]

We’ve only been able to catalog around 50 extra solar planets so far. While not enough to generate an all encompassing generalization about solar systems, it is interesting that so far, our configuration is proving to be anywhere from uncommon to rare.

Do try to keep up. The current count is 209, and all but 12 of those lie within 300 parsecs (or about 1000 light years) and they all lie within 10,000 light years

We have therefore explored, extremely imperfectly, 1.5 x 10^-20 of the volume of the observable universe which extends out to 40 billion light years. Even if we say that planets that lie beyond 4.5 billion light years are excluded, there would be some 9 x 10^19 planets at the density suggested by the current imperfect discovery rate (that’s 90 billion billion planets within 4.5 billion light years). There are likely to be many more. Now what were you saying about planets being rare?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[Orogeny]

Hi Tim

I have to disagree with your argument. Since ‘scientific proof’ is the realm of “logic and pure mathematics” (Douglas Theobald, Ph.D, talkorigins.org), more emphasis is now being placed in public elementary and high schools for mathematics. Let’s face it, logically speaking, science wouldn’t exist without it. Mathematics and science go hand in hand. It is one of the first building blocks taught to pre-school children; 1+1=2, mommy + daddy =me. Furthermore, the house I live in is proof that mathematics is the major root for the existence of science and technology

Yes, there are proofs in mathematics, but math is not science. Math is an important part of science, but it is not a science in and of itself.

Here’s the proof in the pudding as far as Forensic Science. Forensic Chemistry and Toxicology, Forensic DNA Analysis, etc. tncrimlaw.com/forensic/ .

Evidence is considered to be proof in a criminal case. . .
“forensic science has come to mean the application of the natural and physical science to the motion of matters within a legal context2.

Is the claim that evidence is considered proof your statement or is that from your link? I couldn’t find it.

Forensic Science can be viewed as a tripartite structure consisting of
a. Collection, which pertains to the science investigation
b. Examination, which pertains to the investigation and,
c. Presentation, which pertains to the courts.
A forensic case will involve all aspects of each of the three structured elements.”
learninghaven.com/articles/forensic-science-types.html

The application of science is used to collect evidence, examine the evidence and present the evidence. Once again, I will have to disagree with you on your usage of the term proof, even in the legal setting.

Another proof for my argument: “Margaret Burbidge’s colleagues worked on theory and laboratory experiments; she employed the telescope, seeking direct evidence from the heavens. Others had speculated about the origins of elements, but B2FH delivered the proof.” (Smithsonian Magazine, Special Anniversary Issue, “MARGARET BURBIDGE, Stars, quasars, supervovae, galaxies–if it’s out of this world, she has seen it”/ by Marcia Bartusiak, November 2005, P.34) msg. 181

That is the author’s term in a non-scientific magazine. I love Smithsonian Magazine, but it is written for the non-scientific person.

I’ll substitute a shot of whisky for a shot of espresso!

I’m not much of a whiskey drinker (it makes me want to fight), so I’ll take the espresso and you can have the spirit!

Peace

Tim

 

[Orogeny]

Wow that was a blast from the past.



I had almost forgotten that one

Really scary.

and she spelled my name wrong too

I might have to smite her

Actually, Steve, CreosMary is a he and he has a very interesting story. A fascinating man, if I may say so.

Peace

Tim

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

And to end the thread on a high note…

“i dont know why so many Catholics believe in Evolution. Its a ridiculous theory with no evidence. Darwin said in ‘Origin of Species’ that if his theory was true scientists should find innumerable intermediate species (missing links). Well, in the 150 years since his theory zero have been found, neither missing links from ape to human or from anything to anything else.”

**An idea can be valid despite ideas about it entertained by the person or persons first formulating it. He can perfectly well be wrong in detail, but right overall. **​

**So a falsified prediction of how evolution works, is not a reason to reject evolution; even if evolution were “a lie out of the pit of Hell” (it’s not) those who reject it still have to account for the data more convincingly than it is said to do. **

**The Bible is not evidence - not because it’s not valid for anything, but because it is not valid as a source of the sort of information creationists try to get from it. Substitute the words “Tolkien’s mythology” for “the Bible”, and this becomes clear. The Bible has explanatory power - those stories have explanatory power; but the Bible’s power to explain (say) dinosaurs is of no more scientific value, than explaining them by reasoning from the words in Tolkien would be. Arguing from the latter, is obviously invalid - arguing from the Bible *seems *valid, only because it has a long history of being used to explain anything & everything. It does not follow from [belief in the] inspiration of the Bible, that the Bible must therefore be an adequate (let alone final) guide to linguistics, history, mathematics, or anything else than what it professes to be about. **

For studying scientific data, the Bible has no more place than Tolkien’s stories - the proper approach is to let scientific data be studied by scientific methods. To quote Popes on the rib of Adam is not appropriate - because Popes as Popes have no more scientific competence than a biologist has competence in philosophy. They cannot pronounce on properly scientific matters directly - only* indirectly*. **##

“PhilVaz you are so quick to be a spokesperson against the Bible. I wonder–whose team are you on, God or satan’s? What if when you get to Heaven and the Judgment Seat of Christ, He is upset with you for defending a lie from the pit of Hell?”

“God says that He created the Heavens and Earth in seven days. These must be literal days and not long periods of time because He created the sun a day after He created plants. Think about it… I know, Phil, that He did things like that just to humble the proud and foolish people that believe in evolution…”

Words can be used in their proper (so-called literal) sense, without being used to denote the real existence of what they name. Otherwise Christ, “the Lion of the tribe of Judah”, would have paws, a tail, whiskers, a mane.​

**To reject ideas about the Bible is not the same as to reject the Bible. If something is true, it’s true - whether it be traditional or no. If anything, to see creation in an evolutionary, dynamic, perspective provides clues about the “how” of creation - it is a commentary on Psalm 8. **

**The days are days in the proper sense: it doesn’t follow that Gen.1 is to be taken as an account of actual events - to do that, leads to great absurdities. The text is not reporting “A Week in the Life of God”, but emphasising the sole & sovereign responsibility of the God of Israel for all things in creation, & making the point that all were created “very good”. Christians don’t live among people **

• **who believe in gods who make men from the blood of executed gods; **
• or think the sea is a god
• **or that special rites had to be followed lest the world fall back into primeval chaos; **
  - the Israelites did. ##

 

[wildleafblower]

Yes, there are proofs in mathematics, but math is not science. Math is an important part of science, but it is not a science in and of itself.

“Mathematics is the queen of sciences and arithmetic is the queen of mathematics.” Karl Friedrich Gauss

New Kind of Science – from Wolfram MathWorldmathworld.wolfram.com/search/w Kind of Science – from Wolfram MathWorld

Is the claim that evidence is considered proof your statement or is that from your link? I couldn’t find it.The application of science is used to collect evidence, examine the evidence and present the evidence. Once again, I will have to disagree with you on your usage of the term proof, even in the legal setting.

*Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The standard that must be met by the prosecution’s evidence in a criminal prosecution: that no other logical explanation can be derived from the facts except that the defendant committed the crime, thereby overcoming the presumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

The term connotes that evidence establishes a particular point to a moral certainty and it is beyond dispute that any reasonable alternative is possible. It does not mean that no doubt exists as to the accused’s guilt, only that no reasonable doubt is possible from the evidence presented. This standard is distinguishable from the standard of proof applied in civil lawsuits: a preponderance of the evidence, which means that the evidence more likely than not establishes a particular point.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial.*
answers.com/topic/burden-of-proof

*Definition: Proof

Noun

1. Any **factual evidence **that helps to establish the truth of something; “if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it”.
2. (logic or mathematics) a formal series of statements showing that if one thing is true something else necessarily follows from it.*
   websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/Proof

That is the author’s term in a non-scientific magazine. I love Smithsonian Magazine, but it is written for the non-scientific person…

I know scientists that contribute to it and proofread what has been written about them prior to publication in the Smithsoinian. *About Smithsonian Institution
Secretary Small’s Vision “The Smithsonian is committed to enlarging our shared understanding of the mosaic that is our national identity by providing authoritative experiences that connect us to our history and our heritage as Americans and to promoting innovation, research and discovery in science. These commitments have been central to the Smithsonian since its founding more than 155 years ago.”

• Lawrence M. Small, Secretary of the Smithsonian*
  smithsonianmag.com/about/about-the-institution.php

I’m not much of a whiskey drinker (it makes me want to fight), so I’ll take the espresso and you can have the spirit! Peace Tim

As I said earlier, I’ll take the espresso I don’t oppose a man drinking whisky. Don’t know any that get mean while drinking it.

 

[wildleafblower]

“Mathematics is the queen of sciences and arithmetic is the queen of mathematics.” Karl Friedrich Gauss

New Kind of Science – from Wolfram MathWorldmathworld.wolfram.com/search/w Kind of Science – from Wolfram MathWorld

MathWorld Headline News
A New Kind of Science in Stores May 14
*May 6, 2002–After more than a decade of writing and two decades of research and discovery, noted scientist and Mathematica creator Stephen Wolfram has announced the completion of his long-anticipated book **A New Kind of Science. **
This 1197-page book constructs a new way of looking at the operation of the natural world in terms of the behavior of sets of rules that can be embodied in simple computer programs. This paradigm represents a new abstract system for understanding such diverse disciplines as mathematics, physics, biology, social science, computer science, philosophy, art, and technology in terms of general rules of essentially any type.

A New Kind of Science uses computation as a means for understanding both the natural world and abstract mathematical systems. In particular, it extends Wolfram’s early insights gained from investigations into the basic behaviors of cellular automata (an area that had only very modest activity prior to Wolfram’s work and that then became a significant focal point for earlier attempts to understand complexity). In his book, Wolfram implements and describes simple and elegant rule-based computations written almost exclusively in Mathematica, the technical computing system that Wolfram created partly as the research tool he needed to accelerate work on his new science.

In a distinctive and direct style aimed at both lay readers and scientific professionals, Wolfram presents the fundamental new principles that govern phenomena from the origin of complexity in biology to the possibility of a truly fundamental unified theory of physics. Chief among these is his Principle of Computational Equivalence, a principle that Wolfram uses to derive an unprecedented array of implications for science and scientific thinking.

The book contains hundreds of beautiful illustrations created with Mathematica. These illustrations are an essential element of Wolfram’s presentation and method of discovery. The book also features an extensive set of historical and technical notes containing the Mathematica code that Wolfram used for his investigations and serving to present a number of additional discoveries.

A New Kind of Science will be available in stores on May 14. With its release, Wolfram hopes to share and communicate his discoveries with as wide a range of scientists and nonscientists as possible and also to interest others in undertaking additional investigations that follow his fundamental, new results. Initiatives to support further investigations of Wolfram’s work will be announced over time on the book’s website www.wolframscience.com.

Wolfram Research also plans to release a software supplement to the book called A New Kind of Science Explorer. This affordably priced product uses the technology that also powers Mathematica. It is designed to give the user the ability to reproduce many of Wolfram’s experiments in their original form and move on to investigate almost limitless variations. Its user interface requires no programming experience, and it will be released soon after the book’s debut.

References

Wolfram, S. A New Kind of Science. Champaign, IL: Wolfram Media, 2002.

Wolfram, S. “Stephen Wolfram’s A New Kind of Science Website.”
wolframscience.com

Wolfram, S. “Stephen Wolfram: Scientist, Creator of Mathematica, and Author of A New Kind of Science.”
stephenwolfram.com

Wolfram Research, Inc.
wolfram.com and wolfram.com/products/mathematica *
mathworld.wolfram.com/news/2002-05-06/nks/

Thanks Wofram! Luv ya oodles for the help.

p.s. Write ‘science’ in the search site and see what you get

 

[FromTheCrossroa]

Do try to keep up. The current count is 209, and all but 12 of those lie within 300 parsecs (or about 1000 light years) and they all lie within 10,000 light years

We have therefore explored, extremely imperfectly, 1.5 x 10^-20 of the volume of the observable universe which extends out to 40 billion light years. Even if we say that planets that lie beyond 4.5 billion light years are excluded, there would be some 9 x 10^19 planets at the density suggested by the current imperfect discovery rate (that’s 90 billion billion planets within 4.5 billion light years). There are likely to be many more. Now what were you saying about planets being rare?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

Honestly, I’m tired of this. This is proving a waste of each others time. You think you know everything, and from my perspective, further conversations would only lower my opinion of you. Obviously you have more time than I do to scour the earth for the very latest theories. My hats off to you.

I looked at the wrong data for the number of planets. Everyone can make a mistake. 209 is still a rather small number. The universe according to hubble is around 13-14.5 billion years old. Yes I’ve seen the theory that the true universe could be as large as 180 billion light years across. Size and time are not mutually exclusive. It could also be smaller. We’ll likely never know for sure. Cosmologists are still debating that ad infinitum.

I had originally replied to you but the forum went down. Suffice to say, you continue to be arrogant, condescending and argumentative, so I’m done playing with you. Someone else can debat you further or you can now go back to playing warcraft or building a hyperdrive with impunity.

 

[wildleafblower]

Imagine that. Someone with thin skin being arrogant and condescending. A part of mensa perhaps? Do you [Alec-hecd2] know what mensa means in Spanish? Look it up. You accuse someone else of ignorance when you demonstrate as much? This is supposed to be a discussion on a CATHOLIC forum. Are you Catholic or religious? If not, then why are you wasting your time here? It certainly isn’t to inform or educate. I pray you don’t teach as your replies prove you are ill equipped to teach anything to anyone. Certainly you are too arrogant to be open to learning something new…the mark of a true closed minded non-intellectual

Alec isn’t closed minded. He does an excellent job of educating Catholics and non-Catholics on Catholic.com As a brillant scientist, he has tried his best to share with all of us. Unfortunately, some people don’t really want to learn about science.

Ditto my astute egg-headed friend [Alec]. Seriously, this is only a forum. Might I suggest mutating your brain with prozac.

:bigyikes: I’ve never ever heard this kind of language spoken before. It’s disgusting. Uncharitable!

Blah blah blah. Partner, let me give you a nickel’s worth of free advice. Before you continually insult the intelligence of someone here, try learning how to spell the big words you use. Better yet, try learning to talk using smaller ones if you can’t master the simple concept called spell check. That should fix the spelling errors but not ones in your logic/memory. I did not say every human was born with three or more errors. Try reading the post before coming unglued. We haven’t even mapped the complete genome yet much less learned what each switch does

Alec told you the truth in message 194: *I’ll get on to the substantive stuff in a while, but let’s deal with this accusation of poor spelling first. In the two posts in which I addressed your erroneous claims (posts #170 and #171 in this thread) I misspelled two words (amd and bioogy), both of which were plainly typos. Every other word was spelled precisely correctly. If you are ill-advised enough to want to argue by spelling then it behoves YOU to get it right. Since you claim spelling mistakes where there were none, what does that say about your spelling ability?

Alec
evolutionpages.com*

Touche!

 

[hecd2]

Honestly, I’m tired of this.

Yes, it is tiring to assert opinion after opinion based on misunderstanding and error, and constantly to be found out

This is proving a waste of each others time. You think you know everything, and from my perspective, further conversations would only lower my opinion of you.

Well - a waste of your time, anyway. Your opinion of me doesn’t matter a jot to me. None of this changes the fact that you confidently declared the basis of modern biology to be flawed and scientists to be too stupid to realise it, without learning the first thing about the subject yourself. All that I have been doing is to blow the whistle on that ‘noble’ undertaking. Cheerio.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[I_Leatherman]

Howdy hec…was working so did not reply…
Originally Posted by I Leatherman:

I’ve heard there is as much variation in modern skulls to make…
Originally Posted by hecd2:

Then you’ve heard wrong. Source?

Leaky (guy who found Lucy)
Originally Posted by I Leatherman:

Stephen J Gould, while I’m not a fan of his, found it necessary to modify his own view of what the “evolution of species” meant.
Originally Posted by hecd2:

No he didn’t. Have you actually ever read anything written by Gould?

Yes he did, and yes I did.
Originally Posted by I Leatherman:

…Change he saw was sudden, and unexplained, with no gradual and continuous transition. To my mind, the practical ‘evolution’ he saw was not the evolution of the textbooks.
Originally Posted by hecd2:

Really? He was a Harvard biolgist not some cranky creationist. He wrote several books on evolution, including his magnum opus ‘The Structure of Evolutionary Theory’. Have you read it? I thought not. He would have held your misrepresentation of his scientific position in utter contempt. He had no truck with magical explanations for the diversity of species and he was an enthusiastic opponent of creationism.

I stand over what I wrote. Because he wrote a book about just that point.
And I never mentioned anything about cranky magical creationism.
Originally Posted by I Leatherman:

It leaves lots of questions to be answered about just what evolution means. Is it something chaotic and random, blindly rushing in every direction.
Originally Posted by hecd2:

No, nor would any evolutionary biologist suggest that it is. This is a strawman of your own invention.

Don’t agree. Whether on a large or small scale, evolution is dependant on large outside factors which are random or minute random changes, as the driving force for creation of new designs.
Originally Posted by I Leatherman:

My own theory, for what its worth, is that there is a mechanism within a representative of a species which allows for, if you can imagine it, a set of perfect variations within that species.
Originally Posted by hecd2:

We take your speculation, for what it’s worth - ie nothing at all, being supported by absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

You have not provided proof for the evolution of Man.
Originally Posted by I Leatherman:

But thats just my idea, I don’t tell anyone its true, its reasonable, possible - has all the evidence of any other evolution theory.
Originally Posted by hecd2:

It has no evidence whatsoever - unlike real evolutionary theory that is replete with evidence - can you point to any evidence to support your idea?

I’m sure I could twist the evidence to suit my idea.
Originally Posted by I Leatherman:

I did read a paper someone provided as proof of evolution …
Originally Posted by hecd2:

If you don’t even know what the terms are, what devil leads you to pontificate ignorantly and erroneously? Let’s have a citation then for the ‘paper you read’ - here we have another person who knows less than zero biology that thinks he knows more than professional scientists who spend their lives studying the subject.

If I pontificate does that mean I am the Pope…

To find the ‘paper’ you may have to ask someone on this thread, who linked to it on an earlier thread like this one, using it as a proof for evolution.

 

[I_Leatherman]

steveandersen:

We’ve only been studying this in the lab for 100 years or so and these things tend to take many generations to become evident so putting long-lived organisms under selective pressure is both impractical and (depending on what you do) unethical.

So the evolution of Man may not be tested for a while yet.

 

[Pryority7]

In any way you slice it, natural selection in my view is different from evolution. Natural selection produces different varieties of humans, dogs, cats, fish, and stuff, but they are still humans, dogs, cats, fish…and stuff…

That has been proven much, yes, but we are yet to witness the transition of one species of animal to a completely different species of animal (fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, etc).

I’m not claiming anything. I’m just saying we are yet to see such changes…

By the way, will you please stop arguing about petty things like spelling?

 

[Orogeny]

Someone else can **debat **you further or you can now go back to playing warcraft or building a hyperdrive with impunity.

Hmm. Is that an alternative way to spell debate? As someone posted previously in this thread:

Before you continually insult the intelligence of someone here, try learning how to spell the big words you use. Better yet, try learning to talk using smaller ones if you can’t master the simple concept called spell check.

Kettle meet Black. Black meet Kettle.

Be carefull when using petty attacks as they not only make you look petty to begin with, they may make you look foolish later on.

Peace

Tim

 

[PhilVaz]

Come on folks, you’re gonna have to do better than that to match our previous creation-evolution discussions…

“There is much evidence that proves the earth is not billions or even millions of years old. This science is rarely discussed. For example, before we landed on the moon, scientists calculated that since the moon was ‘billions of years old’ there should me a great amount of space dust. People like Isaac Asimov predicted that the moonlander would descend out of view into a great layer of dust. But guess what? When we landed on the moon there was only a few THOUSAND years worth of dust accumulated—only a couple centimeters.”

AND

“This whole thread made me sick to my stomach! So this is Catholicism? The Church of Christ? The Church Christ gave His life for? A bunch of apes evolving into Christians? I’m heartsick.”

AND

“Dinosaurs DO exist in the Bible. In chapter 40 of Job two types of Dinosaurs are mentioned: Leviathan and Behemoth. Read it. also, dinosaur bones and any kind of bones prove only ONE THING: that animal DIED.”

AND

“Simply what you KNOW? Buddy, YOU DONT’ KNOW JACK!! Who do you people think you are!!! You think you’ve got it all figured out!!! You think you’ve got it nailed down!!! All God’s mysteries!!! (Edited ad hominem) First off, it clearly says in Genesis ‘God CREATED man and woman’ - it does not say God EVOLVED man, and then woman from tadpoles!! God CREATED man and woman!”

AND

“Phil, i believe you are deceived and i will pray the Rosary for you daily, because, Phil, you have a lot of little disciples here, who i believe would be more open and accepting of sensible Creationist arguments if it wasn’t for you. God Bless, my friend.”

Come on, let’s pick up the pace a little bit…

Phil P

 

[steveandersen]

In any way you slice it, natural selection in my view is different from evolution.

Yes, they are different. Natural selection is the mechanism for evolution. It is the theory that explains the data.

Natural selection produces different varieties of humans, dogs, cats, fish, and stuff, but they are still humans, dogs, cats, fish…and stuff…

In the short term yes. But what stops the variations from accumulating in the long term?

That has been proven much, yes, but we are yet to witness the transition of one species of animal to a completely different species of animal (fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, etc).

Of course we’re not going to see fish turn into amphibians that has already happened. You can’t go down the same road twice.

What you do see both in the fossil record and in the biochemical one is a sharing of features sort of like footprints in the historical record.

You won’t see a reptile turn into a mammal (since that already happened) but you will see that all reptiles and mammals share certain features with some amphibians indicating that they came from a common ancestor. And you will see that all amphibians, reptiles, and mammals share certain features with some fish indicating that they have a common ancestor.

If you could show a species of mammal that didn’t share the same basic body plan as all amphibians e.g. lateral symmetry, spine, 4 limbs, tube within a tube digestive track, etc. Then you could shoot the whole theory to pieces.

I’m not claiming anything. I’m just saying we are yet to see such changes…

That is a claim.

By the way, will you please stop arguing about petty things like spelling?

The thought never entered my mind.

 

[steveandersen]

In any way you slice it, natural selection in my view is different from evolution.

Yes, they are different. Natural selection is the mechanism for evolution. It is the theory that explains the data.
[Pryority7;1715684]Natural selection produces different varieties of humans, dogs, cats, fish, and stuff, but they are still humans, dogs, cats, fish…and stuff…

In the short term yes. But what stops the variations from accumulating in the long term?

That has been proven much, yes, but we are yet to witness the transition of one species of animal to a completely different species of animal (fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, etc).

Of course we’re not going to see fish turn into amphibians that has already happened. You can’t go down the same road twice.

What you do see both in the fossil record and in the biochemical one is a sharing of features sort of like footprints in the historical record.

You won’t see a reptile turn into a mammal (since that already happened) but you will see that all reptiles and mammals share certain features with some amphibians indicating that they came from a common ancestor. And you will see that all amphibians, reptiles, and mammals share certain features with some fish indicating that they have a common ancestor.

If you could show a species of mammal that didn’t share the same basic body plan as all amphibians e.g. lateral symmetry, spine, 4 limbs, tube within a tube digestive track, etc. Then you could shoot the whole theory to pieces.

I’m not claiming anything. I’m just saying we are yet to see such changes…

That is a claim.

By the way, will you please stop arguing about petty things like spelling?

The thought never entered my mind.

 

[hecd2]

Howdy hec…was working so did not reply…

Howdy mate - like your style. Doesn’t mean I’m going to pull my punches though!
I Leatherman:

I’ve heard there is as much variation in modern skulls to make a proposed transitional sequence of prehistoric skulls look very shakey indeed.

Then you’ve heard wrong. Source?

Leaky (guy who found Lucy)*
That would be Leakey. But do you mean Richard, Mary, Louis or Jonathon Leakey? Well not Mary, because you said ‘guy’. Problem is that Lucy (AL288-1) was not discovered by any Leakey but by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray. Given that so far your answer has contained only erroneous information, you will, I am sure excuse my natural scepticism. I don’t think any Leakey claimed that there was such a variation in modern skulls as to make “a proposed transitional sequence of prehistoric skulls look very shakey indeed”. I am, of course, prepared to retract should a citation be forthcoming. If no citation is forthcoming, it would be rather noble of you to retract.

Yes he did, and yes I did.

I stand over what I wrote. Because he wrote a book about just that point.
And I never mentioned anything about cranky magical creationism.

This is all with regard to Gould. The point is that Gould and Eldredge’s hypothesis is merely a variation on purely gradual change, in which they point out that the fossil record supports periods of stasis punctuated by periods of change. It is not ‘sudden’ (in real time) or ‘unexplained’. But this is utterly conventional - rapid (in geological terms) radiation is known to occur after catastrophe and after isolation. You can agree 100% with what Gould and Eldredge wrote and pass evolution courses with flying colours in any major university. You implied that Gould’s views somehow undermined the mainstream thinking in evolutionary biology (you claimed that they refute standard biological textbooks) They do not. See for example, Futuyama or Mark Ridley.

You have not provided proof for the evolution of Man.

Proof is for liquor and mathematics. The theory that humans share a common ancestry with other living things is supported by a vast array of evidence including the fossil record, paleaontological trends in time, biogeography, anatomical homology, molecular homology, molecular synteny, limitation of chirality, limitation of peptides, nested hierarchy of species, shared tranposons, shared pseudogenes, developmental biology, shared imperfect functionality, structural molecular features, biochemistry… I could go on.

I’m sure I could twist the evidence to suit my idea.

I doubt it. Not convincingly.

If I pontificate does that mean I am the Pope…

No - it means you state highly contentious things, and things that are plain wrong, with enormous confidence and unjustified authority, just like popes have been wont to do.

To find the ‘paper’ you may have to ask someone on this thread, who linked to it on an earlier thread like this one, using it as a proof for evolution.

If you refer to things you should be able to cite them

Alec
'www.evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

Come on folks, you’re gonna have to do better than that to match our previous creation-evolution discussions…

“There is much evidence that proves the earth is not billions or even millions of years old. This science is rarely discussed. For example, before we landed on the moon, scientists calculated that since the moon was ‘billions of years old’ there should me a great amount of space dust. People like Isaac Asimov predicted that the moonlander would descend out of view into a great layer of dust. But guess what? When we landed on the moon there was only a few THOUSAND years worth of dust accumulated—only a couple centimeters.”

AND

“This whole thread made me sick to my stomach! So this is Catholicism? The Church of Christ? The Church Christ gave His life for? A bunch of apes evolving into Christians? I’m heartsick.”

AND

“Dinosaurs DO exist in the Bible. In chapter 40 of Job two types of Dinosaurs are mentioned: Leviathan and Behemoth. Read it. also, dinosaur bones and any kind of bones prove only ONE THING: that animal DIED.”

AND

“Simply what you KNOW? Buddy, YOU DONT’ KNOW JACK!! Who do you people think you are!!! You think you’ve got it all figured out!!! You think you’ve got it nailed down!!! All God’s mysteries!!! (Edited ad hominem) First off, it clearly says in Genesis ‘God CREATED man and woman’ - it does not say God EVOLVED man, and then woman from tadpoles!! God CREATED man and woman!”

AND

“Phil, i believe you are deceived and i will pray the Rosary for you daily, because, Phil, you have a lot of little disciples here, who i believe would be more open and accepting of sensible Creationist arguments if it wasn’t for you. God Bless, my friend.”

Come on, let’s pick up the pace a little bit…

Phil P

Don’t be so despondent. We’ve had the equivalent of all of these in the last four weeks (including, amazingly and wonderfully, the dinosaur-human contemporaneous argument that was published in the Correspondence section of Nature journal -the Nature editors have never before provided quite so much rope) except recent efforts have been couched in marginally better English. I think the standards are being kept up. It’s just all a little more sophisticated and elegant, but it’s fundamentally the same thing. Raise your standards, buddy.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

That has been proven much, yes, but we are yet to witness the transition of one species of animal to a completely different species of animal (fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to mammals, etc).

So, explain Icthyostega, Acanthostega, Pederpes finneyae, Tulerpeton, Tiktaalik, Goganasus. Explain what you think mud skippers are up to. Explain Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Basilosaurus, Dorudon. What on earth are marsupial and, quite separately, placental flying squirrels up to?

Oh I see - the fish kind have always marched four-limbed about dry land from the moment of their creation, and the ungulate kind have always lived in the sea?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[PhilVaz]

Hecd << I think the standards are being kept up. It’s just all a little more sophisticated and elegant, but it’s fundamentally the same thing. Raise your standards, buddy. >>

Ah you’re probably right, I haven’t been paying enough attention…I’ll try to help…

Hecd << So, explain Icthyostega >>

God created.

<< Acanthostega >>

Satan created.

<< Pederpes finneyae >>

God.

<< Tulerpeton >>

Satan.

<< Tiktaalik >>

Zeus.

<< Goganasus >>

Athena.

<< Explain Pakicetus >>

Satan.

<< Ambulocetus >>

God. So that one’s ok.

<< Basilosaurus >>

Satan, not good.

<< Dorudon >>

God, just fine.

Hecd << What on earth are marsupial and, quite separately, placental flying squirrels up to? >>

God created them from scratch just as they are, and put them just where they are, to confuse us about their evolutionary heritage.

Hecd << Oh I see - the fish kind have always marched four-limbed about dry land from the moment of their creation, and the ungulate kind have always lived in the sea? >>

“And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. And the evening and morning were the fifth day. And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good. And yeah behold, God left all the evolutionary evidence about these creatures on the earth to deceive us…” (Gen 1:21-25 Douay-Rheims)

Phil P