Article <g4ia6j9hjujaspsmjn7hnb2ssf54b13bmr@4ax.com>

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 <g4ia6j9hjujaspsmjn7hnb2ssf54b13bmr@4ax.com>

Deutsch English Français Italiano

<g4ia6j9hjujaspsmjn7hnb2ssf54b13bmr@4ax.com>

View for Bookmarking (what is this?)
Look up another Usenet article

Path: ...!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!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: jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Wistar Symposium "Mathematical Challenge to Neo-Darwinism".
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2024 02:19:05 -0400
Organization: What are you looking for?
Lines: 97
Sender: to%beagle.ediacara.org
Approved: moderator@beagle.ediacara.org
Message-ID: <g4ia6j9hjujaspsmjn7hnb2ssf54b13bmr@4ax.com>
References: <MUn6O.847$W2K4.435@fx38.iad> <v3d6nf$2bmpj$1@dont-email.me> <LTK6O.5077$gn%7.4967@fx12.iad> <ga5n5jhd6abu9pel4jk2b3ubop1qaqvg67@4ax.com> <g007O.1024$Ia%b.214@fx03.iad> <lmvq5j15rbj2gkn7m8v65e30msc5cop6ip@4ax.com> <VIQ7O.49803$gn%7.7719@fx12.iad> <csn06j1ov4rqiri18foqc64676pdinva7n@4ax.com> <mA08O.93013$G7Za.38089@fx10.iad> <ons56j9c0rgglqan8rf0m2i8muqm3oatmi@4ax.com> <fDF8O.3$46t.0@fx46.iad> <5sm76jlrljfct3b1mdqfqfakpd0iu4efgm@4ax.com> <Ni39O.74$y8j1.34@fx05.iad>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Injection-Info: beagle.ediacara.org; posting-host="beagle.ediacara.org:3.132.105.89";
	logging-data="72934"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@beagle.ediacara.org"
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
To: talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
Bytes: 6043

On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 16:38:04 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>=20
>>> 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.
>>=20
>>=20
>> 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=20
>that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw it=
=20
>as "no data".


You evaded the question.  Since you claim to speak for Gould, you need
to cite where Gould said "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change".  Anything less is evidence you know you don't know what
you're talking about.

Do everybody a favor and think for a few minutes what your words mean,
and you will recognize that your statement is logical nonsense.  Gould
would never have said such a thing. Both "stasis" and "gradual" mean
the *same thing*; relatively little morphological change over
relatively long periods of time.  Neither mean no change ever.


>But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to=20
>Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored=20
>by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I=20
>think that explains the "no data".


Even if your recollection above is factually correct, it still doesn't
back up your claims; that stasis is the opposite of gradual change;
that Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium aka PE is evidence against
Darwinian evolution; and evidence for ID.


>Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated equilibrium,=
=20
>as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis followed by=20
>punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically speaking)),=20
>then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden =
disappearance.


Once again, what you wrote above is completely ass-backwards.  Stasis
means equilibrium.  According to PE, *rapid change* is preceded and
followed by *stasis*. =20

But your confusion above isn't even the problem here.  Once again, it
*doesn't matter* to Darwinian evolution how fast or slow morphological
change takes place.  In all cases it's still evolution.  ID doesn't
even inform PE.  I know you know this.


>IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved=20
>rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which is=20
>not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
>If I wrong then please explain why.


Once again, your line of reasoning is based on your asinine
assumptions that "rapid" and "gradual" specify a particular amount of
change and a particular period of time.  They do not.  You would know
this if you read anything without your cdesign proponentsists glasses.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge