Article <7oE9O.2238$1BTf.1855@fx08.iad>

Warning: mysqli::__construct(): (HY000/1203): User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\includes\artfuncs.php on line 21
Failed to connect to MySQL: (1203) User howardkn already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections
Warning: mysqli::query(): Couldn't fetch mysqli in D:\Inetpub\vhosts\howardknight.net\al.howardknight.net\index.php on line 66
Article <7oE9O.2238$1BTf.1855@fx08.iad>
Deutsch English Français Italiano
<7oE9O.2238$1BTf.1855@fx08.iad>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article
Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!feeds.news.ox.ac.uk!news.ox.ac.uk!nntp-feed.chiark.greenend.org.uk!ewrotcd!news.eyrie.org!beagle.ediacara.org!.POSTED.beagle.ediacara.org!not-for-mail
From: Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Wistar Symposium "Mathematical Challenge to Neo-Darwinism".
Date: Mon, 10 Jun 2024 10:49:38 -0400
Organization: Public Usenet Newsgroup Access
Lines: 247
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <7oE9O.2238$1BTf.1855@fx08.iad>
References: <v3d6nf$2bmpj$1@dont-email.me>
 <lmvq5j15rbj2gkn7m8v65e30msc5cop6ip@4ax.com>
 <jOmdnTmj1IHGWfn7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <lcl7kpFfjiuU1@mid.individual.net>
 <n27b6j5nsggb6tnm70p4167q409r9nu63r@4ax.com>
 <04WdneoFM9deKvj7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
 <WOq9O.154112$cLn1.45377@fx18.iad>
 <Y8OdnbqxW4Vi-vv7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="22091"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 13.4; rv:91.0)
 Gecko/20100101 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
In-Reply-To: <Y8OdnbqxW4Vi-vv7nZ2dnZfqlJydnZ2d@giganews.com>
Bytes: 13283

John Harshman wrote:
> On 6/9/24 4:22 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> John Harshman wrote:
>>> On 6/9/24 5:16 AM, jillery wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 10:32:25 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-06-08 20:51:39 +0000, John Harshman said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 6/8/24 1:38 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>>>> jillery wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean
>>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> jillery wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean
>>>>>>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> How many have you read pointing out the flaws
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in evolutionary theory?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem with that question is you and other cdesign 
>>>>>>>>>>>> proponentsists
>>>>>>>>>>>> have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in 
>>>>>>>>>>>> evolutionary
>>>>>>>>>>>> theory.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> IOW - None!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
>>>>>>>>>> change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
>>>>>>>>>> nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the 
>>>>>>>>>> people they
>>>>>>>>>> quote are talking about.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and 
>>>>>>>>> equilibrium.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
>>>>>>>> stasis and equilibrium.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
>>>>>>> that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they 
>>>>>>> saw
>>>>>>> it as "no data".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
>>>>>>> Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and 
>>>>>>> ignored
>>>>>>> by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's 
>>>>>>> theory. I
>>>>>>> think that explains the "no data".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated
>>>>>>> equilibrium, as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of 
>>>>>>> stasis
>>>>>>> followed by punctuated (rapid appearance of new species 
>>>>>>> (geologically
>>>>>>> speaking)), then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then 
>>>>>>> sudden
>>>>>>> disappearance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
>>>>>>> rapidly) into a new stable "y species".Â  He calls punctuated 
>>>>>>> which is
>>>>>>> not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
>>>>>>> If I wrong then please explain why.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mostly OK, if oddly stated. A few problems
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. "Sudden disappearance" is not in any way a part of the theory.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. You have the equilibrium part all wrong. The equilibrium is 
>>>>>> stasis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3. The term is "peripheral isolates", adopted from Ernst Mayr, and 
>>>>>> I'm
>>>>>> not sure you know what they are. They're just small, geographically
>>>>>> isolated populations on the periphery of a species range.
>>>>>
>>>>> Speciation in such cases can happen remarkably rapidly. On the island
>>>>> of Madeira there are six races (the term they use, though they fit
>>>>> Mayr's definition of species) of mice, that cannot breed either with
>>>>> one another or with the common European mouse. They appear to have
>>>>> evolved within the past 1000 years (if you assume they are descended
>>>>> from mice introduced by the Vikings), or much less than that if 
>>>>> they came with the Portuguese. (Madeira is an island with numerous 
>>>>> deep
>>>>> valleys separated by high ground that mice can't cross.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I like this example:
>>>> <https://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6372/224>
>>>>
>>>>  From the abstract:
>>>> *************************
>>>> Homoploid hybrid speciation in animals has been inferred frequently
>>>> from patterns of variation, but few examples have withstood critical
>>>> scrutiny. Here we report a directly documented example, from its
>>>> origin to reproductive isolation. An immigrant Darwin’s finch to
>>>> Daphne Major in the Galápagos archipelago initiated a new genetic
>>>> lineage by breeding with a resident finch (Geospiza fortis). Genome
>>>> sequencing of the immigrant identified it as a G. conirostris male
>>>> that originated on Española >100 kilometers from Daphne Major. From
>>>> the second generation onward, the lineage bred endogamously and,
>>>> despite intense inbreeding, was ecologically successful and showed
>>>> transgressive segregation of bill morphology. This example shows that
>>>> reproductive isolation, which typically develops over hundreds of
>>>> generations, can be established in only three.
>>>> *************************
>>>>
>>>> Not bad for a bunch of birdbrains.
>>>
>>> Rapid speciation, perhaps. Peripheral isolate speciation, no.
>>  >
>> Species can vary, even to a minor stage of evolution. We can observe 
>> this with dogs, pigeons and mice. But we never observe major 
>> evolutionary change on the family level. The specific information is 
>> not present in the dog genome to evolve into anything with wings they 
>> can never evolve out of the dog family into another family.
> 
> So you're saying that because we can only observe things that happen 
> over a short time, nothing more can have happened over a long time?
 >
Things can happen within a family, but nothing at or above family level, 
because _new_ specific information would be required.
> 
> And what makes you think that evolving wings is an index of what's 
> needed to get to a different family?
 >
That certainly would be evolution at or above family. There is no 
specific information for this to happen.
> 
>> Furthermore, the origin of DNA and the origin of instructive 
>> information can only be theorized. In the real world we actually see 
>> the loss of information in DNA, but the origin of  _new_ information 
>> in DNA is rarely observed, if ever.
> 
> Not in any way true. New information originates all the time, and we can 
> see it happening frequently. Gene duplication, for example, creates a 
> great amount of new information. Of course your use of "information" is 
> probably as a meaningless buzzword; 
 >
I disagree, repeating the same exact statement adds nothing.  In a 
sentence you inject a second word or series of words no new meaning 
arises. It means nothing: it means nothing it: means nothing.
 >
I sincerely doubt you have a
> definition in mind.
 >
Specific information is instructions, procedure, direction, orders, 
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========