Reflectorites
I apologise for the recent `bombing run' of my responses to FJ's posts, but I
wanted to catch up on all his seeming endlessly repetitive questions so I
could honestly say I had answered them all and could then just write "see
above" or "see previous" when he asks the same questions again, and
again, and again ... (what's the ACSII symbol for infinity :-)).
But as half expected I now have a return `bombing run' of six (6) replies
from FJ (who *definitely* is Pim van Meurs), repeating all the same
questions!
It has occurred to me that this might be some sort of ploy by FJ/Pim to fill
up all our inboxes with the equivalent of `junk mail' in order to shut down
any serious debate on design. When he last did this I eventually inserted a
filter in my emailer and Pim finally gave up and left the Reflector.
But I didn't like doing that, so I am now going to try a different approach (I
know you have heard this before-"the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh
is weak"!) . I have decided to save all incoming messages with my name in
them into text files whose filename contains the date and initials of the sender
(e.g. this one is 00904SB1.txt).
I will then answer the messages in these text files in strict chronological
order first, then the name of the sender second, so I spread my replies
around among Reflectorites
I also intend to allocate only a maximum of hour to each post. Then when
the hour is up I will terminate the message with a "[time's up]" and the rest
of the message will be chopped off unread. If I chop off any important
points the sender can always bring this to my attention publicly (not
privately) and I will try to answer the points. With my other commitments
(I have 3 Biology assignments to do!) this might work out to only an
average of 1-2 responses a day.
Posts that are scrappy and rely on me to tidy them up to make sense of
them, I will tend to ignore or count the tidying up in the hour allocated.
Those that repeat the same questions (like FJ/Pim's) will tend to have the
lowest priority and when I do answer them I will use a lot of "see above"
and "see previous post", etc, rather than waste everybody's time. I probably
will have less time to tidy up and spell check my posts, so I apologise for
that in advance.
But even then, given the amount of mail that is in response to my posts (I
am not complaining), I will probably still not be able to answer them all, so
any posts more than 7 days old will be consigned to the bit bucket.
I am saying this up front so that you will know why I might not answer
your posts. My apologies in advance.
Steve
On Mon, 04 Sep 2000 10:50:17 -0500, Susan Brassfield Cogan wrote:
[...]
>>It appears that most (if not all) evolutionists are unable to even form in
>>their minds the question: "What do you, an evolutionist, consider the most
>>telling points against evolution?"
>>SB>I think you are assuming that someone is in doubt...
>SJ>Note how Susan's reply rephrases the question. I asked "... any ...
>>evolutionist ... what they consider `the most telling points against ...
>>Evolution?"
SB>I think the problem is, that the question is about a century out of date.
If this hasn't got a name as a fallacy in logic it should have!
This "out-of-date" defence is just another ploy by evolutionists to protect
their theory from challenge, as Dembski points out:
"Evolutionary biologists have a habit of ignoring the most pertinent
criticisms of their theory until they can decently call them out-of-
date." (Berlinski D., "Denying Darwin: David Berlinski and
Critics," Commentary, September 1996, p26)
It is *irrelevant* how "out of date" a question is. The real issue is, has it
been answered or refuted, and if so, what was the answer or refutation?
SB>You are assuming someone, somewhere, is still trying to prove that
>evolution is true by answering important objections. They aren't.
Since Susan has defined "evolution" as (something like) "a change in gene
frequencies in a population" who would *bother* trying to prove Susan's
version of "evolution is true"?
SB>The last
>"telling point" that I know about was the lack of mechanism to transmit
>variations from one generation to another. That was resolved around 1900.
Yes. If "evolution" is just "a change in gene frequencies in a population"
then that would do it. Then there would have been since "around 1900" no
more "telling points against ...Evolution"!
What I can't figure out is why Susan even *bothers* to debate it.
SB>Since that time all the evolutionary research has been focused on finding
>further substantiation for it--transitional fossils, for example, which
>have been found in abundance--and to figure out how it works.
Maybe Susan would be interested in this recent quote by Robert Carroll,
author of the monumental Vertebrate Paleontology, who now admits what
the creationists have been saying all along:
"What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by
Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the
morphospace between distinct adaptive types." (Carroll R.L.,
"Towards a new evolutionary synthesis," Trends in Ecology and
Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32)
A fuller quote is in the tagline.
SB>The reason your question goes unanswered now is because it was answered a
>very long time ago. You just didn't like the answer.
As the title of Carroll's paper indicates, the answer has been *wrong* all along
and now there is a need for "a new evolutionary synthesis"!
SB>Johnson (and you) keep saying there are "flaws in" or "problems with"
>evolution that evilutionists just don't want discussed
I am going to quote in my taglines over the next few weeks from Carroll's
paper and another paper by a molecular biologist, James Shapiro, which are
both admitting that their respective disciplines that there are major
"problems with" evolution that the *Darwinists* indeed "just don't want
discussed".
SB>It is *you* (and
>he) that don't want them discussed because when someone asks "what flaws?"
>they get a bunch of tired creationist nonsense that has been refuted ad
>nauseum and is really designed to fool people who are not familiar with the
>actual evidence
The problem is that it *hasn't* "been refuted" *at all*! And some evolutionist
who are not as dogmatic are being forced by the *facts* to admit the
problems.
Dirt that is swept under the rug is still there and if it happens enough
it makes lumps that become more and more noticeable!
[times up!]
[...]
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most obvious contrasts between the darwinian view of the patterns and
the rates of evolution, and the evidence that has since been documented by
the fossil record, are illustrated in Fig. 1. Darwin used the only illustration
in the first edition of The Origin of Species to explain his hypothesis that
the patterns of evolution over hundreds of millions of generations were the
same as those at the level of populations and species. In fact, they are
clearly distinct in all taxonomic groups 4,8 . Evolution at the level of
populations and species might, in some cases, appear as nearly continuous
change accompanied by divergence to occupy much of the available
morphospace 9. However, this is certainly not true for long-term, large-
scale evolution, such as that of the metazoan phyla, which include most of
the taxa that formed the basis for the evolutionary synthesis. The most
striking features of large-scale evolution are the extremely rapid divergence
of lineages near the time of their origin, followed by long periods in which
basic body plans and ways of life are retained. What is missing are the
many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual
divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct
adaptive types." (Carroll R.L., "Towards a new evolutionary synthesis,"
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 2000, Vol. 15, pp.27-32)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 18 2000 - 18:42:36 EDT