|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Punk Eek for Redwolf | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5821 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
That being the case, i.e. if Gould and Eldredge's theory does not require the new creatures produced by PE to spread out and overwhelm older herds, then we should still observe vast herds of pleistocene creatures with handsfull of modern animals penned up in tiny "peripheral areas". The basic problem with PE, as with any version of a theory of evolution, is that it requires limitless sequences of probabilistic miracles, and the only difference with PE is a difference in the KIND of probabilistic miracle. Now, a reasonable person might yet listen to a theory which required one or two probabilistic miracles to have occurred in the entire history of our planet, but NOBODY should listen to or want to hear about a theory which stands everything we know about mathematics and probability on their heads and requires that basic mathematical laws be INVERTED. That's the problem. Aside from that, there's still the problem of providing a mechanism for PE type changes and the creation of entirely new kinds of animals with new organs and new basic plans for existence, and your claim to have provided such by dropping a name rings rather hollow. In fact a google search on "anagenetic ERC" turns up exactly nothing and an unbiased observer would assume you'd invented the term. Moreover, your claim that man introducing cats, rats, and rabbits into new areas and their surviving only indicates that globally adapted animals are globally adapted, and is in no way a refutation of the principal I'd noted, i.e. that globally adapted animals generally win out over locally adapted ones, i.e. that the first time ordinary cats, rats, dogs etc. are introduced to one of Darwin's island paradises, the exotic animals tend to get wiped out and that's a fact which is in stark contradiction to Gould and Eldredge's punk-eek idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
redwolf Member (Idle past 5821 days) Posts: 185 From: alexandria va usa Joined: |
For the benefit of newcomers to this thread, the original post went thus:
The big lie which is being promulgated by the evos is that there is some sort of a dialectic between evolution and religion. There isn't. In order to have a meaningful dialectic between evolution and religion, you would need a religion which operated on an intellectual level similar to that of evolution, and the only two possible candidates would be voodoo and Rastifari. The dialectic is between evolution and mathematics. Professing belief in evolution at this juncture amounts to the same thing as claiming not to believe in modern mathematics, probability theory, and logic. It's basically ignorant. Evolution has been so thoroughly discredited at this point that you assume nobody is defending it because they believe in it anymore, and that they are defending it because they do not like the prospects of having to defend or explain some expect of their lifestyles to God, St. Peter, Muhammed... To these people I say, you've still got a problem. The problem is that evolution, as a doctrine, is so overwhelmingly STUPID that, faced with a choice of wearing a sweatshirt with a scarlet letter A for Adulteror, F for Fornicator or some such traditional design, or or a big scarlet letter I for IDIOT, you'd actually be better off sticking with one of the traditional choices because, as Clint Eastwood noted in The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly:
The best illustration of how stupid evolutionism really is involves trying to become some totally new animal with new organs, a new basic plan for existence, and new requirements for integration between both old and new organs. Take flying birds for example; suppose you aren't one, and you want to become one. You'll need a baker's dozen highly specialized systems, including wings, flight feathers, a specialized light bone structure, specialized flow-through design heart and lungs, specialized tail, specialized general balance parameters etc. For starters, every one of these things would be antifunctional until the day on which the whole thing came together, so that the chances of evolving any of these things by any process resembling evolution (mutations plus selection) would amount to an infinitessimal, i.e. one divided by some gigantic number. In probability theory, to compute the probability of two things happening at once, you multiply the probabilities together. That says that the likelihood of all these things ever happening, best case, is ten or twelve such infinitessimals multiplied together, i.e. a tenth or twelth-order infinitessimal. The whole history of the universe isn't long enough for that to happen once. All of that was the best case. In real life, it's even worse than that. In real life, natural selection could not plausibly select for hoped-for functionality, which is what would be required in order to evolve flight feathers on something which could not fly apriori. In real life, all you'd ever get would some sort of a random walk around some starting point, rather than the unidircetional march towards a future requirement which evolution requires. And the real killer, i.e. the thing which simply kills evolutionism dead, is the following consideration: In real life, assuming you were to somehow miraculously evolve the first feature you'd need to become a flying bird, then by the time another 10,000 generations rolled around and you evolved the second such reature, the first, having been disfunctional/antifunctional all the while, would have DE-EVOLVED and either disappeared altogether or become vestigial. Now, it would be miraculous if, given all the above, some new kind of complex creature with new organs and a new basic plan for life had ever evolved ONCE. Evolutionism, however (the Theory of Evolution) requires that this has happened countless billions of times, i.e. an essentially infinite number of absolutely zero probability events. And, if you were starting to think that nothing could possibly be any stupider than believing in evolution despite all of the above (i.e. that the basic stupidity of evolutionism starting from 1980 or thereabouts could not possibly be improved upon), think again. Because there is zero evidence in the fossil record (despite the BS claims of talk.origins "crew" and others of their ilk) to support any sort of a theory involving macroevolution, and because the original conceptions of evolution are flatly refuted by developments in population genetics since the 1950's, the latest incarnation of this theory, Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge's "Punctuated Equilibrium or punc-eek" attempts to claim that these wholesale violations of probabilistic laws all occurred so suddenly as to never leave evidence in the fossil record, and that they all occurred amongst tiny groups of animals living in "peripheral" areas. That says that some velocirapter who wanted to be a bird got together with fifty of his friends and said:
You could devise a new religion by taking the single stupidest doctrine from each of the existing religions, and it would not be as stupid as THAT. But it gets even stupider. Again, the original Darwinian vision of gradualistic evolution is flatly refuted by the fossil record (Darwinian evolution demanded that the vast bulk of ALL fossils be intermediates) and by the findings of population genetics, particularly the Haldane dilemma and the impossible time requirements for spreading genetic changes through any sizeable herd of animals. Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence). Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it. And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 5 by mark24, posted 04-21-2004 11:45 AM | mark24 has not replied |
Message 7 of 50 (101594)
04-21-2004 3:50 PM |
Reply to: Message 5 by mark24 04-21-2004 11:45 AM |
|
The original points were, that you claimed that tiny populations were unviable, I showed they were not.You claimed "tiny peripheral groups" could not conquer vastly larger groups. I showed they could, or at the very least didn't have to.
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 5 by mark24, posted 04-21-2004 11:45 AM | mark24 has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 9 by Chiroptera, posted 04-21-2004 4:17 PM | redwolf has not replied | ||
Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 04-21-2004 4:25 PM | redwolf has replied | ||
Message 24 by mark24, posted 04-22-2004 5:30 AM | redwolf has replied |
Message 11 of 50 (101603)
04-21-2004 4:29 PM |
Reply to: Message 10 by Loudmouth 04-21-2004 4:25 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 10 by Loudmouth, posted 04-21-2004 4:25 PM | Loudmouth has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 12 by Chiroptera, posted 04-21-2004 4:51 PM | redwolf has not replied | ||
Message 13 by Loudmouth, posted 04-21-2004 5:26 PM | redwolf has replied |
Message 14 of 50 (101640)
04-21-2004 6:18 PM |
Reply to: Message 13 by Loudmouth 04-21-2004 5:26 PM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 13 by Loudmouth, posted 04-21-2004 5:26 PM | Loudmouth has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 15 by Chiroptera, posted 04-21-2004 6:24 PM | redwolf has not replied | ||
Message 17 by Loudmouth, posted 04-21-2004 6:59 PM | redwolf has not replied | ||
Message 18 by GSHS, posted 04-21-2004 10:52 PM | redwolf has not replied |
Message 25 of 50 (101810)
04-22-2004 9:18 AM |
Reply to: Message 24 by mark24 04-22-2004 5:30 AM |
|
Once again, & as as I've mentioned before, I am not basing the formation of our present biosphere on PE. Gradualism is recorded in the rocks, too. I merely point out that Gouldian PE lacks unequivocal fossil evidence whilst anagenetic PE has lots.Furthermore, & this should be abundantly clear by now, I am not advocating Eldredge & Gould's formulation of PE & I refuse to defend it specifically, but I am defending the notion that rate change in some form or another does occur.
Anagenetic: When one species transforms into another across time.
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 24 by mark24, posted 04-22-2004 5:30 AM | mark24 has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 26 by redwolf, posted 04-22-2004 9:20 AM | redwolf has not replied | ||
Message 27 by mark24, posted 04-22-2004 11:06 AM | redwolf has replied |
Message 26 of 50 (101811)
04-22-2004 9:20 AM |
Reply to: Message 25 by redwolf 04-22-2004 9:18 AM |
|
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 25 by redwolf, posted 04-22-2004 9:18 AM | redwolf has not replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 28 by RAZD, posted 04-22-2004 11:19 AM | redwolf has not replied | ||
Message 29 by AdminAsgara, posted 04-22-2004 11:23 AM | redwolf has not replied |
Message 37 of 50 (101936)
04-22-2004 7:01 PM |
Reply to: Message 27 by mark24 04-22-2004 11:06 AM |
|
Gradualism does not "occur in the rocks"; if it did, there would have been no need for PE in the first place.
Yes it does. You can draw a straight line between P. ralstoni & P. jarrovii. It will be diagonal indicating gradualism.
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 27 by mark24, posted 04-22-2004 11:06 AM | mark24 has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 38 by Brad McFall, posted 04-22-2004 7:30 PM | redwolf has not replied | ||
Message 40 by mark24, posted 04-22-2004 8:05 PM | redwolf has replied |
Message 41 of 50 (102003)
04-22-2004 9:34 PM |
Reply to: Message 40 by mark24 04-22-2004 8:05 PM |
|
Yep, & the evolutionary rate change is gradual & constant. You claimed gradualism didn't occur "in the rocks"...
This message is a reply to: | |||
Message 40 by mark24, posted 04-22-2004 8:05 PM | mark24 has replied |
Replies to this message: | |||
Message 42 by Wounded King, posted 04-23-2004 3:33 AM | redwolf has not replied | ||
Message 43 by mark24, posted 04-23-2004 4:20 AM | redwolf has not replied | ||
Message 44 by Brad McFall, posted 04-23-2004 1:27 PM | redwolf has not replied | ||
Message 46 by mark24, posted 04-27-2004 6:33 PM | redwolf has not replied |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024