Ignorance and evolution

[buffalo]

The evidence that we can observe is limited by our five senses (with actual and as yet unimagined instrumental extensions). That is all the evidence we will ever have.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

We agree.

 

[reggieM]

So you are the one that introduced the word facts

No, I used the word “facts”.

 

[reggieM]

Here is fact for you. It is a fact that biologists have reached and held an overwhelming consensus for the last 130 years that evolution did occur and and that it explains the diversity of species.

A large majority of scientists are capable of agreeing on things that are wrong. I think we see evidence of that in history.

I think it would be easier to say that moths were seen to change color due to environmental influences and therefore “evolution happened” and thus there was a scientific consensus.

There is far from an “overwhelming consensus” when one moves beyond that kind of simplistic idea and on to things like plotting the Tree of Life.

As I posted, some scientists believe that the tree of life (still based on similarity of body-forms and not on genetic development) should be “uprooted”.

I don’t think it helps to cover-over the many significant disagreements that supporters of evolution have in regards to fundamental elements of the theory.

 

[The_Barbarian]

There is far from an “overwhelming consensus” when one moves beyond that kind of simplistic idea and on to things like plotting the Tree of Life.

As you should know, the “tree of life” is not a Darwinian idea. It was first noticed by a creationist, Linnaeus, who pointed out that living things formed a nested hierarchy like a geneology, while other things did not. (he was unable, for example, to do that with minerals)

As I posted, some scientists believe that the tree of life (still based on similarity of body-forms and not on genetic development)

You’ve been misled about that. DNA analysis is one of the strongest evidences for the fact of common descent.

I don’t think it helps to cover-over the many significant disagreements that supporters of evolution have in regards to fundamental elements of the theory.

Actually the people you quoted accept common descent. They merely think lateral gene transfer early on has made it harder to draw the tree. I can see where you might mistake that for doubts about common descent, if you didn’t understand what biology was about. There are, as you likely don’t know, entire journals dedicated to the controversies in evolution, but no biologist without a religious objection doubts common descent.

 

[reggieM]

… a decade after Woese’s declaration about the three domains, W. F. Doolittle (Professor, Canada Research Chair in Comparative Microbial Genomics) threw his own hat into the ring. Based on work at his molecular biology laboratory in Nova Scotia, he declared in 1999 and 2000 that an “uprooting of the tree of life” may be necessary because there was so much lateral transfer” at the very dawn of life, a process that undermined the very idea of a cornmon ancestor. By the time of the Tree of Life conference, even an orthodox Darwinian like E. O. Wilson was speaking of the “still tangled and problematic trunk of bacteria and archaea.”

In his presentation, Doolittle stated, “My view does challenge Darwin in a couple of ways.” It threw into doubt a first ancestor, on one hand, and undercut the idea that gene mutation is the only cause of new evolutionary forms, on the other. “The mechanism of adaptation may be borrowing genes rather than making your own genes better.”

“Lateral gene transfer could be so massive that there is no gene that would track organismal history all the way back to the beginning,” Doolittle said, chatting before his formal presentation at the conference. “It doesn’t make a lot of sense to talk about the last common ancestor.” He prefers concepts such as “a common ancestral population,” which still means life was invented only once, but the universal genetic code came out of a promiscuous collection of early DNA precursors: “A community evolves, and eventually that community gets all the properties a modern cell has. But there was never a single cell to which we can trace it all.”

“If for some personal reason you believed in God, a God who intervenes in the world, then I guess there is plenty of place for him to intervene because we simply have not proven very much about what happened in the totality of life’s history.”

It looked to me like Doolittle and E.O. Wilson were doubting that there was a common ancestor here.

At the very least it looked like there was less than the kind of total consensus that some will propose.

 

[reggieM]

**The quintessential ‘living fossil’ **

http://research.myfwc.com/images/gallery/20040825_085938_12130.jpg

The term “bradytely” has been coined to describe the very slow morphological changes associated with an evolving lineage. One familiar example is the Limulus, the horseshoe crab, with living specimens closely matching fossil forms. Although the living animals are significantly larger than the fossil forms, they all have the same distinctive body plan.

It is customary for researchers to identify stem group species and crown group species as they seek to find patterns in the fossil material. This approach has been followed within the class Xiphosura, with a group known as the **synziphosurines considered as stem lineage **animals living during the Silurian-Carboniferous Periods.

**All this work is thrown into the melting-pot **by the discovery of Lunataspis aurora, “the oldest horseshoe crab”, from Late Ordovician deposits in Canada. This animal is essentially modern in appearance and it predates the synziphosurines.

The oldest horseshoe crab: a new xiphosurid from Late Ordovician Konservat-Lagerstatten deposits, Manitoba, Canada.
Rudkin, D.M., G.A. Young, and G.S. Nowlan.
Palaeontology, 51(1), 1-9, Jan 2008 | doi: 10.1111/j.1475-4983.2007.00746.x

Abstract: A remarkable new fossil horseshoe crab, Lunataspis aurora gen. et sp. nov., from recently discovered Upper Ordovician (c. 445 Ma) shallow marine Konservat-Lagerstatten deposits in Manitoba (Canada), is characterized by fusion of opisthosomal tergites into two sclerites. A broad mesosoma of six or seven fused segments, followed by a narrow metasoma of three reduced segments, represents an advanced transitional condition in the development of the xiphosurid thoracetron. Lunataspis further possesses a large crescentic prosomal shield bearing lateral compound eyes on weak ophthalmic ridges that flank a low cardiac lobe, and a keeled lanceolate telson. Lunataspis is much older than the proposed ‘synziphosurine’ stem lineage of Carboniferous and post-Palaeozoic Xiphosurida, yet is strikingly similar to crown group limuline horseshoe crabs, indicating that major features of the distinctive and highly conserved xiphosurid Bauplan evolved considerably earlier in the Palaeozoic than was previously suspected. In addition to establishing a new temporal benchmark for assessing hypotheses of early chelicerate relationships, the discovery of horseshoe crabs in a Late Ordovician marginal marine setting marks the earliest definitive record of this persistent ecological association.

 

[The_Barbarian]

Turns out you got the story just a little bit “adjusted:”

**The 445 million year old horseshoe crab fossils found near Churchill and in the Grand Rapids Uplands area, are now the oldest of their kind on record, said Graham Young, curator of Geology and Palaeontology at the Manitoba Museum.

“It’s great we can find things in Manitoba that are new to Manitoba but also new to the world,” he said. The fossilized creatures, which exist in a slightly more evolved state today, have a head shaped like a horseshoe, earning them their name. Modern horseshoe crabs can be up to two feet long, said Young. Although they’ve evolved, they share characteristics with their early ancestors.**
palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/worlds-oldest-horseshoe-crabs.html

Actually, there are no modern genra of horseshoe crabs in the fossil record, although like dragonflies, they seem to have changed only slightly, probably for the same reason; they live in environments that haven’t changed much.

And the stem merostomid hasn’t been thought to be a synziphosurine. Learn more about it here, to understand why you got it crosswired:
palaeos.com/Invertebrates/Arthropods/Chelicerata/Merostomata/Xiphosura.html

 

[reggieM]

The emphasis in the statment “although they evolved” sounds very defensive to me in such a brief article.

They “evolved” only by having a body type that is “slightly larger” according to the other article I posted.

The Palaeoblog lists the Skeptical Inquirer in its list of geology and science links.

That’s a site where you can find “debunking” of the Virgin of Guadalupe, the “hoax” of the Shroud of Turin, and various articles dismissing Transubstantiation, Excorcism, miracles of the Catholic saints and other such scientifically-relevant material.

I will assume that he’s an atheist.

Atheism may not be very common in the general public but I find a lot of it in discussions of evolution on the internet. I also find it to be very common on blogs that are focused on evolutionary matters.

That might be a coincidence, but I think it is more significant than that.

 

[reggieM]

National Geographic

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/06/0621_020621_wirehorseshoecrab.html

How long horseshoe crabs live, whether they return to the beach of their birth for spawning, why their life cycles seem directed by the moon, where they disappear to for the other 10 months of the year-all these questions remain mysteries.
Somehow, the horseshoe crab has thrived for 500 million years, and Sue Schaller wants to know why. “You’ve got an animal that predates dinosaurs by 200 million years, and it hasn’t changed much at all. It hasn’t had to evolve,’ said Schaller, a biologist who has studied Maine’s horseshoe crabs for the past three years.

biology-online.org/biology-forum/about3372.html

Some lineages (e.g., the descendants of species 5 changed very little over time. A good example of this would be “living fossils” like the horseshoe crab or cockroach.

 

[The_Barbarian]

[quoteHow long horseshoe crabs live, whether they return to the beach of their birth for spawning, why their life cycles seem directed by the moon, where they disappear to for the other 10 months of the year-all these questions remain mysteries.
[/quote]

Sounds like rather small gaps in which to hide creationism. What we don’t yet know isn’t support for your religious ideas.

Somehow, the horseshoe crab has thrived for 500 million years, and Sue Schaller wants to know why. “You’ve got an animal that predates dinosaurs by 200 million years, and it hasn’t changed much at all. It hasn’t had to evolve,’ said Schaller, a biologist who has studied Maine’s horseshoe crabs for the past three years.

As you learned, they have evolved, although not much. But then, the sea has been pretty much the same for hundreds of millions of years, so it’s not a surprise for one who understands evolutionary theory. It’s called “stabilizing selection”, and it’s been understood since Darwin.

Some lineages (e.g., the descendants of species 5 changed very little over time. A good example of this would be “living fossils” like the horseshoe crab or cockroach.

A testable claim. What modern species of limulus or cockroach is found in the fossil record?

 

[itinerant1]

sorry, but since the title of this thread is “evolution and ignorance”
I’m not sure what an out-of-date book has to do with the topic.

Biology is not a religion with The Descent of Man as some sort infalable scripture.

I would rather discuss evolution with someone who has explored more modern sources.

Don’t wink at me with that
blue-faced funny lookin’ smiley. Lol.

Modern Sources??? The modern sources, Ernst Mayr, et al. have been fundamentally influenced by Darwin, including that which is contained in “The Descent of Man”. Modern science did not arrive here in a vacuum, or from some other planet as the science-knowledge equivalent of panspermia.

Modern science itself is more deeply understood by anyone who understands its roots. This is one of the things that makes great scientists to be what they are, and mediocre scientists to be what they are. The latter did not learn the correct lessons from those who came before them, while the former did. Overall, it’s a matter of whether contemporary science advances closer to the truth in a significant way, or merely perpetuates fundamental errors of the past, while accumulating a vast amount of data.

There is no such thing as understanding evolutionary theory as a whole as if it could be understood as something modern that is not integrally connected to its historical antecedants. Hence, modern Darwinsim is called neo-Darwinism for a reason. At least someone is being intellectually honest.

No one is claiming that the Descent of Man is some infallible guide to evolution, or anything else. In fact, if anything can be inferred from what I said, it would the opposite conclusion. The Descent is very flawed from a both a scientific and philosophical perspective. It is no more infallible than is Modern Science, which remains heavily influenced by the errors of The Descent of Man and the *Origin of Species. *If Darwin had made fewer fundamental errors so would Modern Science.

I am one not one to say things without first knowing that they are so. Hence, I will soon post an example of a continuation of Darwinian errors, and post as well, a monologue on Darwin’s geneology of the moral sense.

Many modern scientist subscribe to the myth that they conduct research with the utmost objectivity and are not bound in many ways to the prejudicial errors of historical science.

This does not mean that I don’t think evolution is a fact. The fact of evolution is not the same thing as a theory of evolution, or an untenable theory of evolution. It means the fundamental flaws in Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are demonstrable.

Fortunately, evolution itself rolls on and cannot be modified in any way by Darwinism, or any other theory. The problem is not evolution; the problem is the ism.

Also, in the interest of allowing equal time, I have more criticisms to post concerning the erroneous ways of Biblical literalists. This way no one can say I am picking on them. I make an honest effort to criticize both sides equally. Lol

Anybody is welcome to comment on or criticize my upcoming posts, or just ignore them as he or she so pleases. Each to his own.

 

[hecd2]

It is no more infallible than is Modern Science, which remains heavily influenced by the errors of The Descent of Man and the *Origin of Species. *If Darwin had made fewer fundamental errors so would Modern Science.

I am one not one to say things without first knowing that they are so. …

It means the fundamental flaws in Darwinism and neo-Darwinism are demonstrable.

If these “flaws” are so easily demonstrable, then how is it that you are quite impotent to demonstrate them?

I am always find people amusing who are untutored in the content of science but who think they can find obvious flaws that scientists as a profession have consistently missed for decades.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[hecd2]

No, I used the word “facts”.

You introduced it and you are still unable to put forward a single thing that was regarded as a fact by biologists a decade ago that has since been refuted, despite your repeated and erroneous claims.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[itinerant1]

If these “flaws” are so easily demonstrable, then how is it that you are quite impotent to demonstrate them?

I am always find people amusing who are untutored in the content of science but who think they can find obvious flaws that scientists as a profession have consistently missed for decades.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

What an icy cold wind it is that blows across this thread!

I am not so impotent that I cannot read properly. Apparently, you did not read my post very well. I said I would be posting more on these matters.

For right now, I am involved in another, but related thread. So I would suggest a little patience on your part, and not to make wild assumptions on matters with which you are totally unfamiliar. There are more things in heaven and earth than what can be seen with the miscoscope (electron microscopy included).

I must say your attitude is not very scientific, and it is not conducive to discussion or to learning anything new. It may help if you read St. Thomas Aquinas’ article on “docility” as a necessary condition for learning.

The issues I am referring to have been noted very well by many scientists at the Pontifical Academy of Science. But you already knew that, and it slipped your mind. Right?

Also, these matters have been discussed in many published papers and books by Professor Stanley L. Jaki. I am sure you must be familiar with his works, but just forgot that he has been discussing these issues for decades. Right?

In addition, many philosophers discuss the issues I am concerned with at length. For example, there is Mortimer J. Adler’s book, *The Difference of Man and the Difference it Makes. Also, *I can give you a long list of book titles and article titles in Catholic journals of philosophy, going back decades, but I am afraid you do not possess the requisite background to properly understand them. It’s not that you are not intelligent enough to understand them, but there is no easy road to understanding traditional metaphysics.

If you have been keeping yourself informed on what the Vatican has been saying about evolution, which I am sure that you have, then you know that an understanding of origins involves specific contributions by the natural sciences, philosophy, and theology. So, don’t assume that evolution is just a matter for the scientist.

Though it can only help, one does not need to have specialized background and training in invertebrate zoology, or publish learned articles on recently discovered varieties of Hymenoptera, or contribute new insights into Lagenidium giganteum as a mosquito larvae biological control agent, or any such specialized matter, in order to understand something of the problems with Darwinism from that broader perspective, which is the province of philosophical knowledge. But you aleady knew that. Right?

Furthermore, the problems with evolutionary theory I deal with are most often from a philosophical aspect, not a scientific one. This makes any point you were trying to make, rather moot.

Of course, you are learned in the philosophy of biology and can expound upon a metaphysics of nature from the point of view of the *philosophia perennis, *or, more specifically from traditional Christian philosophy, you know, the kind many popes have counseled that Catholics need to learn, especially priests and those going into specialized fields.

Unfortunately, most Catholic scientists are not trained in traditional philosophy, and are out of tune with anything it has to say. So, many scientists have in fact overlooked certain critical matters for many decades.

You assume that I am “untutored in the content of science”. Have you ever heard the traditional wisdom that says “Assumption is the mother of all error”?

So, if you don’t mind, I will be returning to more important matters regarding St. Augustine’s criticism of Biblical literalists who discount the legitimate findings of science. Of course, that is not a topic that interests you, but none the less, it remains of significant interest to other folks, so I must leave you here for the time being to amuse yourself with my posts…and I’m glad I was able to add a little humor to your day.

 

[The_Barbarian]

I think, if the “flaws” in evoutionary theory are obvious, now is the time to show them to us.

The “philosophical flaws” would be largely imaginary, since scientific theories rest on a single philosophical assumption, that of uniformitarianism.

 

[Sideline]

I am not so impotent that I cannot read properly. Apparently, you did not read my post very well. I said I would be posting more on these matters.

You said in an earlier post you don’t mind people responding to your latter posts, so I thought I’d jump in.

I must say your attitude is not very scientific, and it is not conducive to discussion or to learning anything new. It may help if you read St. Thomas Aquinas’ article on “docility” as a necessary condition for learning.

Actually, asking someone to demonstrate their position is the most scientific of all pursuits. When I adopt attitudes such as this, it is when I learn the most. The moments when I say, “All hubris aside, what is the evidence.”

Also, these matters have been discussed in many published papers and books by Professor Stanley L. Jaki. I am sure you must be familiar with his works, but just forgot that he has been discussing these issues for decades. Right?

I’ve noticed that people who point out that there are huge flaws with evolutionary theory are very big on arguments from authority. “My expert says this!”, they claim. Yet a list of experts isn’t evidence.

I can give you a long list of book titles and article titles in Catholic journals of philosophy, going back decades, but I am afraid you do not possess the requisite background to properly understand them. It’s not that you are not intelligent enough to understand them, but there is no easy road to understanding traditional metaphysics.

Well, that solves that problem, doesn’t it. Evolutionary Theory is flawed, but no one here would properly be able to understand why. This is why the scientific process demands evidence and examination.

Though it can only help, one does not need to have specialized background and training in invertebrate zoology, or publish learned articles on recently discovered varieties of Hymenoptera, or contribute new insights into Lagenidium giganteum as a mosquito larvae biological control agent, or any such specialized matter, in order to understand something of the problems with Darwinism from that broader perspective, which is the province of philosophical knowledge. But you aleady knew that. Right?

Furthermore, the problems with evolutionary theory I deal with are most often from a philosophical aspect, not a scientific one. This makes any point you were trying to make, rather moot.

So what is this philosophical flaw? Why don’t you trot it out so that people here can see if you are talking sense, or just using obscure justifications of your point of view.

Of course, you are learned in the philosophy of biology and can expound upon a metaphysics of nature from the point of view of the *philosophia perennis, *or, more specifically from traditional Christian philosophy, you know, the kind many popes have counseled that Catholics need to learn, especially priests and those going into specialized fields.

For someone who objects to the tone of others, you are very sarcastic and demeaning. I guess you aren’t interested in learning, so your attitude doesn’t matter?

 

[Peter_Wilders]

Although I have discontinued exchanges with Orogeny (he tried to convince me over several posts the Holy Father was author of the 2004 ITC document!!!), I am using his response as an object lesson of the inability of those concerned to address the published scientific data of Berthault’s experiments. Thread participants should have realised by now that unsupported by their “straw person” pre-conceptions they have nothing to offer.

Originally Posted by Peter Wilders

Either strata form quickly or they don’t. Can we please keep to sedimentology and the experimental proof?

Orogeny:

Yes, let’s, shall we?

Peter:

That’s words; we are still waiting for the science?/QUOTE]

But this is the basic issue and he doesn’t attempt to address it. He and his colleagues ask for scientific discussion, but when the opportunity arises he brushes it aside with an unqualified four word affirmation from authority

.

You would never do that, would you Peter. How many times have you mentioned the Russian Academy or French Academy as reasons that your buddy’s fantasies are true?

More words, still no science

What would he say about people in a forum ignoring the experimental data and then complaining no scientific evidence is being shown?

Sorry, Peter, but the experimental data has not been ignored. You have ignored the arguments against your buddy’s interpretations, but the experimantal data, at least that which has been posted on Berthault’s sites, has not been ignored.

So where is the scientific rebuttal? Please don’t refer to hecd2’s slanderous critique arrogating to himself the final word unsupprted by professional data and repeatedly resorting to the straw man. I really believe he thinks it sufficient for him to condemn something or someone for the axe to fall

This is exactly the situation with him and his colleagues. Dare to mention the experiments and one meets with “Berthault rubbish”, “his conlusions are wrong” etc. Those unwilling to examine the facts but willing to criticise them is a sad reflection on their state of mind.

Yep. Berthault rubbish and his conclusions are wrong I came to those conclusions by examining his facts. Am I a liar, Peter? How about a heretic?

Rather than change the subject why doesn’t he tell us what were the “facts” that led him to his conclusion ?

The varves he mentions are microstrata deposited by a mechanism of particle sorting by size; not chronology.

You are wrong. There have been plenty of study of the formation of varves.

But this is an argument from authority. Why not address the point raised?

Varves are microstra which sort by size. There is no chronology. This a fact tested by experiment; published by the French Academy of Sciences. which he has rubished/COLOR]

This explains the regularity of varve size. The components are clay, pollen and algae. Of coarse, this will be met with the usual scepticism. Yet how many will examine the experimental record? The mechanical sorting can be easily observed by tipping the various particles into a flask of water. This is shown in the video “Fundamental experiments on stratification”. Hundreds of laminae can form in this way simultaneously.

Yep. Forget what has been observed actually occuring.

U]Experimental evidence ranks well above observation.

Oh. Wait. Peter, did your little experiment include clay? How about algae and pollen? Was that part of the sediment used in the flume? Was that deposited from the flowing water?

Also, Peter, why is the organic content of every other layer different from those above and below (and I mean above and below in the vertical sense)? Did that happen during your flume testing? Did you include clays and organic material in the original mix?

Further proof that he knows little about the work he condemns. The eleven different sediments used in the experiments which included diatomite, showed it was not the sediments but the size of particles which determined the mechanism.

Regarding non-successive formation of strata; Pierre Julien showed superposed beds in a flume prograding at the same time in the direction of flow. These beds were not successive. Please check the visual data. before criticising.

I did, Peter, and I must stick with my conclusion that the only way one could interpret those experiments the way you and your cohort do is to begin with the conclusion and then find a test that could be used to support it

.

The conclusion based upon observation is that strata do not from successively. The test is the demonstration by Pierre Julien in his glass board presentation, that strata form from graded sedimentary particles. They do not form like snow with one layer upon another.

In your case (or at least Berthaul’s case), that predetermined conclusion is that Genesis is a literal history and the earth is young.

When all else fails: back to the “straw man”!

The problem with these gentlemen is their urge to condemn the person and with him the professional organisations which published his work. Far from finding support for their “beliefs” they disclose an unwillingness to study the experimental facts. Such a position betrays ignorance. I trust their supporters will hesitate before listening further to their misleading rhetoric.

I have nothing further to add other than recall the title of the thread IGNORANCE and EVOLUTION

Peter

:

 

[itinerant1]

You said in an earlier post you don’t mind people responding to your latter posts, so I thought I’d jump in.

Glad you did, sort of.

Actually, asking someone to demonstrate their position is the most scientific of all pursuits. When I adopt attitudes such as this, it is when I learn the most. The moments when I say, “All hubris aside, what is the evidence.”

Agreed. But then, again, I am the one who first offered to present the counter-arguments. I noted this will be done real soon, as I am currently busy with other matters. So, I fail to see why you have become so quickly consternated.

I’ve noticed that people who point out that there are huge flaws with evolutionary theory are very big on arguments from authority. “My expert says this!”, they claim. Yet a list of experts isn’t evidence.

I never implied a reference to flaws in “evolutionary theory”. With the utmost specificity, I referred to flaws in Darwinian and neo-Darwinian theory. “Evolutionary theory” and “darwinian evolutionary theory” are not equivalent terms.

Your consternation regarding arguments from authority is premature since I have not yet presented my additional arguments. So, your statement implies that you have pre-judged what you have not even seen by means of the fallacy of hasty generalization.

In addition, arguments from authority are not necessarily fallacious. In some uses, they comprise a legitimate form of proof, but the weakest form of proof. In cases where both interlocutors agree on the fact of Revelation, an argument from authority such as the Apostle Paul, other premises being true, constitutes a certain proof.

Neither have I presented a list of experts as proof. I named some experts and written sources as available resources to show that these issues have in fact been discussed for decades. There is real difference between “resources” and “proofs from authority”. Otherwise, every list of recommended reading in every book would be absurdly categorized as an argument from authority.

Well, that solves that problem, doesn’t it. Evolutionary Theory is flawed, but no one here would properly be able to understand why. This is why the scientific process demands evidence and examination.

Again, I never "Evolutionary Theory" is flawed. See comment above.

So what is this philosophical flaw? Why don’t you trot it out so that people here can see if you are talking sense, or just using obscure justifications of your point of view.

Again, I explained above, and in previous posts why I have not just “trotted it out”, as you say. But wasting my time addressing responses of this nature sets me further back in time. Your comments are counter-productive.

But more to the point is that some people have conveniently ignored the fact that I am not the one who has made statements but then refused to support those statements. The evidence for this can be found in my post that describes how Darwin asserted that the moral sense has evolved by natural processes and is not something inherent with human nature. This clearly contradicts the authority of St. Paul. My statement was summarily denied in a second post by one who is a scientist. However, said person(s) refused to support the denials with any evidence from Darwin’s writings.

In addition, I noted Darwin’s treatment of man as an animal who only differs in degree from higher animals. I provded an exact quotes from the *Descent *as evidence of his statement. I next explained the implications of the concept of man. My position was also summarily denied by those who had not read the “Descent of Man”. However, all of this was ignored too, even when I gave another opportunity for the gain-sayers to provide their interpretation of the text in question. When nothing was moving forward. I did not pursue thos particular arguments.

Thus far, some of the evidence that I have presented that shows flaws in Darwinism has been ignored. Will additional evidence that I present likewise be ignored by those advocating scientific methodology and the need for evidence and proof?

What is it that was said about first removing the log from thine own eye?

In fact, I am still waiting for anyone new to jump in and address my original arguments so I don’t have to uneccesarrily repeat myself in additional posts concerning the flaws in "Darwinian evolutionary theory", not to be understood as synonymous with “*evolutionary theory”, *not to be understood as synonymous with "evolutionary theory".

For someone who objects to the tone of others, you are very sarcastic and demeaning. I guess you aren’t interested in learning, so your attitude doesn’t matter?

This retort does not merit a response. Peace out bro!

 

[The_Barbarian]

Peter writes:

Varves are microstra which sort by size. There is no chronology. This a fact tested by experiment; published by the French Academy of Sciences. which he has rubished

Peter, how do you explain the fact that the pollen distribution in varves reflects the actual presence of pollen in seasons? How do you explain another mechanism that does it, and how it suddenly switched to the annual mechanism we see operating to day, just as humans appeared to observe it?

If varves were once caused by another mechanism (we can see them working by seasonal processes, two layers a year, right now) how are you going to explain these things?

I don’t think ranting at Orogeny’s reasonable questions, is going to help you. A decent theory, supported by some evidence, is going to be required.

 

[Orogeny]

So where is the scientific rebuttal? Please don’t refer to hecd2’s slanderous critique arrogating to himself the final word unsupprted by professional data and repeatedly resorting to the straw man. I really believe he thinks it sufficient for him to condemn something or someone for the axe to fall

You can choose to ignore our past discussions if you want, Peter. I have given experimental results that directly oppose your interpretation. I give you Berthault’s results. I chose to use Pierre Julien’s experiments. That seems to make the most sense since we both agree that the experiments were valid. The test results don’t even begin to show what you falsely claim they do. There isn’t one single point in the resulting deposits that a particle that is above another is older than the lower particle. Not one. Even Pierre Julien agrees with me on this. You know Dr. Julien, he was the SCIENTIST involved with the experiment.

Rather than change the subject why doesn’t he tell us what were the “facts” that led him to his conclusion ?

Reading Dr. Julien’s paper and watching your propaganda film. Any right thinking person can see that the deeper strata is older.

But this is an argument from authority. Why not address the point raised?

I have.

Varves are microstra which sort by size. There is no chronology. This a fact tested by experiment; published by the French Academy of Sciences. which he has rubished/COLOR]

Nice argument from authority.

U]Experimental evidence ranks well above observation.

Sure it does as long as the experiment is set up to match the setting of the observation. How big was that flume? How big is the Tonto group in the Grand Canyon? How about the Green River formation?

Where did this massive “transgression” come from? Where did the sediment come from? Where is the limestone in the flume experiments?

Further proof that he knows little about the work he condemns. The eleven different sediments used in the experiments which included diatomite, showed it was not the sediments but the size of particles which determined the mechanism.

Ok, what about pollen and algae? Remember, that was the question I asked, wasn’t it Peter. I would suggest that you respond to my questions rather than going off on a tangent to try an hide the fact that we all know that the elements of varves that you yourself identified were not part of the experiment. How fast does algae settle, Peter?

The conclusion based upon observation is that strata do not from successively. The test is the demonstration by Pierre Julien in his glass board presentation, that strata form from graded sedimentary particles. They do not form like snow with one layer upon another.

According to Berthault’s experiments they do.

The problem with these gentlemen is their urge to condemn the person and with him the professional organisations which published his work. Far from finding support for their “beliefs” they disclose an unwillingness to study the experimental facts. Such a position betrays ignorance. I trust their supporters will hesitate before listening further to their misleading rhetoric.

Call me ignorant if you will, Peter, but it doesn’t change the fact that you are actively trying to mislead people with this “science” that you have discovered. I have debated with you on several occasions and you always run away as soon as I start hitting you with science.

I have nothing further to add other than recall the title of the thread IGNORANCE and EVOLUTION

My case is made. Peter Wilders is attempting to mislead you. He will say anything to confuse you.

He claims he is not a YEC. If that is the case, I really don’t have any ideas as to why he would deliberately try to mislead. I guess why is not important.

Just remember, in order to believe what he is trying to tell you, you MUST accept that sideways equals above and below. If you don’t accept that, you cannot possibly accept what he is selling.

And he is right about the title of this thread. He is counting on your **ignorance **so that he can refute evolution.

Sad.

Peace

Tim