The First Cause argument is one of many philosophical arguments for or against the existence of God. As such we could classify it under 'Ultimate Questions.' Other ultimate questions could deal with epistemology or how we come to know what we know/certainty versus uncertainty and what is necessary for truth. Is there an ultimate purpose and meaning or do we just create our own depending on our preferences? Is there an ultimate good, or is this too something that each individual decides for himself/herself? Are cultural conventions sufficient to explain why something can be 'good?' If there is no universal ideal or reference then how do we measure good? Who gets to decide?
...written by Peter Huff
Let me start this off with a few questions for the atheist concerning values since I don't see how such a world-view can have an adequate answer for such questions.
ReplyDeleteHow can an atheist or secular humanist justify 'good' or any qualitative value as anything but preference? How does he get 'good' out of personal feelings without an absolute, objective, universal ideal/standard? How does he answer the problem of evil if he can't produce anything other than a changing social convention or personal taste as the reference point? Why 'should' his/her particular thoughts/views be the standard that all others should/ought to follow?
How can something that is labeled 'good' by one social convention/social group be labeled evil by another and both be right? It goes against every form of logic and reason.
I think this seems to be the proper place for evolution yes?
ReplyDeleteAnd the short answer to what constitutes good, id what facilitates trust between individuals and groups. I'll try and do a longer answer if I can, but it may not be for a few days.
If this is the wrong thread for this, many apologies.
ReplyDeleteHi All,
On evolution and purpose (Apologies at the outset for the hideous length. I put this into Word when I finished just to see how long it was and it was almost five full pages double spaced.):
I am convinced by the evidence of evolution by small step natural selection, which his to say, small random changes in genes and emphatically non-random survival. And it is the gene that is the proper level of analysis in evolution. Some biologists will still argue for individual organisms, populations, or species, but that is unconvincing, partly because when changes occur at those other levels, there had to have been a change at the genetic level first, and that change had to have resulted in a change in expression (not all of them do), and that change in expression had to have some effect on survivability, positive or negative, which not all of them do either. So the level of the gene is the most appropriate level of analysis.
Incidentally, there are also still a handful of biologists that argue for punctuated change, which is to say lots of changes that happen all at once as opposed to the gradual change I am about to describe. Such punctuated change is unconvincing in part because we do occasionally see organisms born with massive changes, and they are so ill equipped to survive that they are either stillborn or die very quickly. This suggests that such massive changes are not conducive to survivability. In the greater than astronomically improbable event that such an organism was able to survive, it wouldn't be able to reproduce to pass on those genes since there would be nothing similar enough to it to reproduce with.
I am going to go at this in three parts using the analogy of scribes copying a text. No, I am not trying to pick on the bible here, I just think this is a really useful way to think about the situation because a gene, with its letter combinations and sequences is, in a very literal sense, text. First, I'll describe how the replication process can produce errors and how they stick. Then I'll take that one step further with multiple copies per round of copying and how some changes can be non-randomly favored over others. Last I'll pull it all back to the language of the gene, because one should always be careful not to anthropomorphize about genes outside of analogy, thereby showing what is actually meant by the phrase, the "purposelessness" of evolution. (You can tell by the way I've organized this little essay that I am a graduate student. :))
So, first to explain changes in genes. There are different ways to think about genes, but the most useful is as units of self replication. Within that unit of self replication are letter combinations. That's the double helix. In my analogy, a one hundred character block of text, which includes spaces and punctuation, represents a gene, each character in the text represents a letter combination on a double helix strand, and the scribes represent the function of self replication. That is why, for each new round of copying, I will have a new set of scribes.
ReplyDeleteWe start with a text of one 100 characters. The first scribe copies that text with 100% fidelity. A second scribe then copies the second text with 100% fidelity. This continues, say 100 times, with each new scribe copying the most recent text with 100% fidelity. The 101st scribe then makes an error. (There is nothing pejorative about the word "error" here, it is simply a lack of copying fidelity.) The error is very small. A "t" in "time" becomes a "d" for "dime." There was no "purpose" to this change, no "ulterior motive." It is simply an accidental lack of copying fidelity that then gets passed on to the next scribe. The 102nd scribe copies the latest text with 100% fidelity, meaning the new "d" remains in place. This sequence of events, of a new scribe copying the latest text continues, say, 100 million times, with occasional errors. Not strictly periodic errors, but occasional ones. If the probability of error is extremely small, say 1 in 1 million (I am trying to keep numbers simple), then after 100 million copies, you have a probability of 100 errors. Think about how many different ways you can make 100 errors in 100 characters of text using 26 letters, 10 numbers, a space, and 13 pieces of common punctuation, for a total of 50. Any one character at each copying could change in 49 different ways. (Again, to keep things simple, I am excluding the possibility of multiple changes in a copy.) By the time you get to the 100 millionth text, it could look significantly different than the first text. Since each individual change was non-purposeful, no ulterior motive, you can't say that the first scribe had the 100 millionth text "in mind" when he copied the first text. His only job was to copy that one text with the greatest fidelity possible.
In the previous paragraph, I tried to show how copying errors can occur, stick, and build on themselves. The scribes are new each time because as each new copy is made, the scribe, the replicating process, has no access to the previous text; he can only copy what is there. This section is going to try to show non-random survival using the same rules of 100 characters of text and a new set of scribes for each round of copying and only one change per individual copy. For the first round, we begin with 100 characters of text and four scribes. Each scribe makes his own copy, all with 100% fidelity. Four new scribes each copy one of the four new copies of text with 100% fidelity. This continues for 100 rounds of copying, with four new scribes each time, all with 100% fidelity. The 101st set of scribes comes in and three copy with 100% fidelity, one makes an error. a silent "h" at the end of a word becomes an extra space. This is a neutral error. It produces neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. The 102nd set of scribes all copy with 100% fidelity, which is to say, three are still like the original, the fourth retains that new space. This goes on through the 200th copy.
ReplyDeleteWhen the 201st set of scribes makes copies, the second one now makes an error, say, a decimal point in a number becomes a zero. It's a small change in and of itself, but it changes the expression of the number. When the 202nd set of scribes arrives to copy, that copy with the new error is "deemed" to be disadvantaged, and is therefore selected out. The remaining three are copied with 100% fidelity. This goes on for a few hundred more copying rounds, with one neutral change in the first copy. At the 500th copy then, you have one copy with a neutral change, one copy that is still identical to the original, and one with a different neutral change. The 500th set of scribes copy the second and third with 100% fidelity, but the first has an error. A period becomes an "s" pluralizing a word. Small change, but it affects the expression of the word. The 501st set of scribes "deem" this copy to have an advantage over the other two, which are then selected out, leaving the first copy as the dominant version, though slightly different from the original and still subject to errors in copying.
Advantage and disadvantage are actually much easier to explain in the context of actual genes since you now have the environment to play with. To a gene, the environment can mean a couple of different things. It can mean the actual environment outside its carrier organism, including the other organisms with which its carrier both competes and cooperates; it can also mean the other genes with which it is likely to share a carrier, or the genome. Lion genes work best when in the presence of other lion genes. Externally, you can get gene changes that result in expressions that allow for successful competition between species, like an evolutionary arms race. Gene changes can assist in survival within species, for example, an individual can have a small change that results in slightly greater transparency in the lens of the eye. This allows the individual to see more clearly things like predators, food, and potential mates. This individual survives and reproduces better than its siblings and cousins, passing on that change to some, though not necessarily all, of its offspring. Those offspring that get it are better able to survive than their cousins and second cousins and eventually that change works its way through the population over several generations, at which point it is no longer a mutation, but just another part of the genome. It was a random change that was non-randomly selected. Conversely, an organism could have had a change that resulted in a slightly greater level of opacity in the lens. This individual would be able to see predators, food, and mates less well than its siblings and cousins, which means it would be less likely to survive and reproduce to pass on that change. It is a random change that is non-randomly deselected. Changes can also affect cooperation within a species. For example, a male individual may have a change that expresses itself as assisting his female mate in building a nest. If this results in offspring being better protected, for example, and each male offspring has a 50% chance of having that gene change, that will likely spread through the population.
ReplyDeleteSo what does all this have to say about purposelessness? As random changes occur, and as the internal and external environment non-randomly select and deselect those changes, the self replicating process can't "predict" or "guide" what a genome may look like after 500 or a 1,000 generations. Selected changes build on each other vastly increasing the number of possibilities. When one says that evolution is purposeless, purpose is being used in the sense of intentional direction. Genes, when they self replicate, don't go back to previous versions of genes to see what they looked like. They are what they are, and they just copy themselves, hopefully perfectly. There is no particular "end" point it is trying to "get" to.
I hope all of that made sense. I know it was hideously long. There is a lot more to say about evolution and genetics, and the other stuff I was thinking about today didn't directly pertain to the question. I hope it wasn't boring. I know genetics isn't for everyone, but this something I find thoroughly fascinating and exciting. I try to read about it whenever I can.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, this is a vastly different topic than asking an individual person what he or she believes to be the purpose of his or her life. One reason I don't like the overarching question, "what is the meaning of life?" is that I don't think its a meaningful question with a meaningful answer. I can tell you what I think the purpose of my life it and that will be a meaningful answer. You can tell me what you think the meaning of your life is and that will be a meaningful answer. You can ask that of 100 different people and probably get 100 different answers. Some of them a re likely to be similar, but its unlikely there will be identical ones. Our genes can go about their business replicating and making mistakes, but as individual whole organisms, people, we can also make decisions about what is most important to us and what holds meaning for us and what is meaningful for us to do with our lives. The original question that I asked, to rephrase it, was why should we assume that there is a requirement for life (not human specific, all life) to serve some sort of overall purpose or function? That is different from both the evolution question and the individual people question.
Again, I hope it wasn't boring. Full disclosure, I am not a biologist. I'm a social science weenie studying political science. But I do have eclectic interests and I like to read a lot. Full disclosure part two, it is entirely possible I pilfered and modified the scribe/text analogy from Richard Dawkins, though I don't remember which book it's in, and short of pulling them all off the shelf to look, I am going to take a swag and say that it is in The Blind Watchmaker. Just so you don't think I'm all super smart and completely made that up myself.
peter, in the intro above, i think you mean "versus" versus "verses" - though verses are certainly from whence your certainty...
ReplyDeletesara
ReplyDeletewow - excellent job!
about "punctuated" vs gradual evolution: scientists don't really debate about that. "punctuated" and "gradual" are only terms you hear in the context of creationist discussions.
it's really a false distinction. there's a spectrum. sometimes evolution happens "quickly" and sometimes gradually. but here "quickly" would still be over tens or hundreds or thousands of generations at the quickest and for the simplest of organisms and the most superficial of features. you're never gonna see the creationist caricature of a fish giving birth to a chicken etc.. but it can be "punctuated" to the extent that the stronger the selective pressure, the faster evolution could occur. (e.g., a change in environment can "spark" evolutionary change.)
btw, have you read francis collins' "the language of god"? he sees genetics as evidence for god and evolution.
Walter,
ReplyDeleteThanks!
I haven't read the book. It sounds... curious.
And I totally agree with you about "punctuated" evolution. I put it in there in the spirit of a grad school-ish literature review to show why other ways of thinking about the situation are less convincing.
Hi Walter,
ReplyDeleteYou are right. Thanks for noticing that screw up! It is incredibly easy for me to make mistakes like that. It have a trial version of WhiteSmoke, but I am finding it annoying.(^8
Btw, nice to hear from you, and great snow sculpturing! You have a talent.
Darn, I did it again. You'll just have to ignore my illiteracy.
ReplyDeletehi peter. i was just good-naturedly razzing you. i enjoyed forming sentences with both uses of that "versus/verses" sound, too.
ReplyDeleteHi Sara,
ReplyDeleteAs a philosopher I don't understand how something without intent can cause something with intent, and that is you and I. What explanation does evolutionary science have for life from non-life or intelligence from non thinking processes?
Do you not think that a lot is taken for granted in evolutionary science to arrive at the conclusion that DNA/genes have formed, then mutated to produce a different kind?
The irreducible complexity alone of a simple cell was something that Darwin did not understand. The DNA structure comprised of nucleotide chains - A, G, C, and T - in the right sequence speaks of information coming together in a specific way that would take a chance process, some have said, longer than the currently speculated history of the universe to form. Then that process of change would have to work from a common ancestor and move towards more complex forms, such as you and I.
Fazale Rana, The Cell's Design, How Chemistry Reveals The Creator's Artistry, p. 99 said:
"Mutual interdependence of DNA and proteins stand as a major stumbling block for evolutionary explanations of life's origins. Origins-of-life researchers even refer to this conundrum as the chicken-and-egg paradox. Because these two molecules are so complex, scientists don't think DNA and proteins could simultaneously arise from a primordial soup. The existence of DNA apart from proteins and proteins apart from DNA is like a column of people trying to simultaneously ascend and descend a staircase."
Inside each cell are different kinds of 'machines' that have different jobs in making the cell function.
The whole process speaks of intelligence.
I also thought that gradual evolution was rejected long ago in favor of punctuated evolution because the fossil record did not support these gradual changes.
Capital Walter, capital.
ReplyDeleteSARA,
ReplyDeleteWow. That was a gargantuan post! And it was definitely shades of Dawkins’ argument in The Blind Watchmaker (which title, by the way, is an oxymoron everywhere except in the world of total commitment to evolution theory—I don’t know any blind watchmakers, do you?).
Peter certainly raised some reasonable questions about your post. I'd like to add a couple of additional points/questions to what he said.
It is my understanding that the vast majority of mutations corrupt rather than improve--Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles notwithstanding… :-). When you add this conspicuously missing element to your hypothesis of gene mutation leading to upward evolution, you take what is already a virtual mathematic improbability to the level of impossibility, don’t you? As Peter pointed out, the question of adequate time for evolution is becoming an increasingly reasonable question as we peer ever deeper with our microscopes.
Secondly, if this process is so infinitesimally slow, shouldn’t the abundant fossil record be literally bursting with numerous, clearly traceable (with every minute change in the entire progression) examples of speciation? The current “evidence” for speciation is, at best filled with incredible gaps. It’s almost like having only 1 out of every 1,000 frames of a movie and claiming, despite the multiple blocks of 999 missing frames, that we can fully understand the plot of the movie. Doesn’t that seem to be something of a stretch?
BTW: Your "scribes" analogy overlooks the rather obvious aid of contextualization. But then the issue of scribal transmission may need another entire thread to be adequately discussed.... :-)
Peace.
WALTER,
ReplyDeletebut it can be "punctuated" to the extent that the stronger the selective pressure, the faster evolution could occur. (e.g., a change in environment can "spark" evolutionary change.)
....or adaptation limited within the range of a given species.....
That doesn't amount to speciation.
Hi guys,
ReplyDeleteHere are some short answers, as I have about 300 pages of reading to do for my monday and tuesday classes, which is a lot when you have to underline and takes notes as you go. A long answer may have to wait til next week.
Peter: First, who are you quoting? Just curious. Second, I am not sure where you've gotten the idea that punctuated evolution is now the favored lens when the opposite is true. I'll talk more about that in the long answer. Irreducible complexity assumes that one or more pieces of a item can't serve a different function when outside the context of the whole item. I am also curious as to why you think geological time is shrinking? If it is inaccurate, it is because we've underestimated not overestimated, due to rocks being sucked back in to the earth. I'll try to squeeze a bit in about dating techniques in the long answer. I'll also address the question of the origin of consciousness and the origin of self replication.
Randy: I don't know any blind watchmakers either... I think that is part of the point of the title ;) Fossils are bonus points. They are cool to look at in a museum and certainly provide a wealth of information, but they are not the most important nor the most convincing evidence for evolution. In the long answer I will explain how we can determine inter species relatedness and intra-species relatedness. Both fascinating and elegantly simple. Yes, the vast majority of mutations are bad. That's part of the reason punctuated evolution is not a viable explanation. The more changes there are all at once, the less viable the resulting organism will be. One thing that I did leave out of the scribe analogy was of genes being able to replicate more than once, making two or three or more daughter genes, instead of just one. Each of those all make multiple daughter genes and that's how the population grows. Different lines can have different changes, and since we know there are millions of ways to be successful on this planet, multiple changes can fill multiple niches, which is how you get genetic diversity in asexually reproducing organisms. I will go into more detail in the longer post.
Does this speak to intelligent design? I wonder then, why do the photo receptors in the eyes of humans face backwards, away from the direction of light? Why, in fact, do they face backwards in all vertebrates, but not invertebrates? Why do we have vestigial DNA? Why do we have a tailbone if we never had a tail? Why do we have an appendix that does nothing for modern humans but give them appendicitis? Why do we eat and breath through the same hole, causing thousands of people to choke every year, while whales are able to eat and breath through different holes, thereby never choking on their food? These seem rather unintelligent and inefficient to me. I am curious as to what your mark of a good design is. Most engineers I've ever met would say efficiency and utility and aesthetics in certain cases. Everything I just listed (there are other examples) is inefficient, three of them have no utility, and I don't think you can apply aesthetics here. Yet all of these things are perfectly understandable in the context of small changes, that while imperfect, are better than an alternative, and that build on each other over a long period of time.
Cheers, hopefully I'l be able to post again by Wednesday.
All,
ReplyDeleteI tried to post a long short answer to everything last night, but it appears my post didn't take. So the short short answer is, all questions acknowledged and I will post a long answer, probably next week, as I have some 300 pages of reading to do for my monday and tuesday classes, which is a lot when you have to underline and take notes at the same time...
In the meantime, I will say three things:
1. Where have you gotten the idea that punctuated evolution is the more favored idea when the exact opposite is true?
2. What is this about geological time... shrinking? If anything, we've underestimated, not overestimated.
3. What do you think is the mark of a good design? Most engineers I've ever talked to would say not simply functionality, but efficiency, utility, and in some cases, aesthetics. If you'd agree, then please explain the following inefficiencies/non-utilities:
1. The photoreceptors in the human eye face backwards, away from the direction of light.
a. The photoreceptors in ALL vertebrates face backwards.
b. Invertebrates have their photoreceptors facing forwards....
2. Vestigial DNA. Not only does it sit there not doing anything, taking up energy during development, but the same vestigial DNA sits there not doing anything in other organisms as well.
3. The Tailbone. Makes sense if we used to have a tail, as other primates do. Waste of energy in embryonic development if we didn't.
4. The Appendix. Again, makes sense if it used to serve a function and natural selection has since turned off the functionality, which is much more cost efficient than trying to wipe out a whole organ. Why put it there when it does nothing but give some handful of people appendicitis?
5. We eat and breath through the same hole, causing thousands of people to choke each year. Yet whales, which includes dolphins, get to eat and breath through different holes, thereby never choking on their food.
All of these are inefficient, three of them have no utility to modern humans, and I don't think aesthetics applies here. It strikes me as quite unintelligent, and exactly the sort of thing you'd expect from a slow, gradual process of small changes that build on each other; that might not be perfect, but are better than the alternative that was there at the time; by a process that does not say, "wait wait, be patient, I am going to be a fruit bat some day," but a process that says, "I need to copy myself with the greatest fidelity possible" and mistakes get in. There are more examples, these are just the ones off the top of my head. How can creationism explain how we have these things, why we have these things, and under what conditions we may have gotten these things? That's what it means to be able to explain something.
SARA,
ReplyDeleteRandy: I don't know any blind watchmakers either... I think that is part of the point of the title ;)
Indeed it is. We are forced to presume a "blind," unidentifiable "force" without purpose or design creating an almost infinitely intricate, amazing universe so well designed and calibrated that centuries of scientific investigation has only begun to scratch the surface. Kinda magical, isn't it? Just like a blind watchmaker. "Fairies at the bottom of the garden" I say, to borrow Dawkins' over-used phrase and turn it back on him.
As for the five "inefficiencies/non-utilities," these have become standard fodder for the evolution crowd. If we don't understand the function or utility of something...it must be evidence of evolution. The "logic" of that escapes me.
As for "vestigial" (junk) DNA, the same thing applies. We haven't figured out what it does, so it must be "junk." This is becoming quite a red herring as we discover more and more that what we thought was just "junk" actually does have function/utility.
Same for "vestigial" organs. If we can't seem to figure out the function of an organ/appendage, etc., it becomes "evidence" for evolution. Interestingly, the list of vestigial organs/appendages has grown increasing shorter over the last several decades. Why do you think that is?
BTW: Were you unaware that quite good cases have been made recently that both the appendix and the "tail-bone" serve relatively important functions in humans?
Happy reading for your class prep. Did you say you are doing post-graduate work? What field, if you don't mind my asking?
Peace.
Hi Sara,
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"And the short answer to what constitutes good, is what facilitates trust between individuals and groups. I'll try and do a longer answer if I can, but it may not be for a few days."
I've heard the altruistic gene argument before. Maybe you can do it justice, but I don't think it capable of a 'good' answer.
The altruistic gene as opposed to the selfish gene. So are you are basing what good is on how the majority feels about a certain issue? For some abortion is wrong, for others its the 'right' of the woman to determine. It all depends on your biological make up, your culture, the way you have evolved (conditioning, environment, etc.) as to the view you accept in your world-view? Of course, you would contend that the more advanced have the altruistic gene, rather than the Hitler gene.
It still doesn't answer why your subjective opinion, your feelings on the matter, your preference 'should' be the definition of the ideal (the ideal being your opinion and those like-minded), just possibly why it is or could be. Why do you get to decide? Isn't this what wars are fought over? Isn't it what causes all the problems we have in the world today - somebody trying to legislate their particular idea of 'good' on someone else without an objective norm? It is power politics. Those in power make the rules.
Logically you are in a heap of contradictions. If two different social groups or conventions both have an opposite idea of what 'good' is then who is right? In Canada in the not to distant past abortion was considered wrong/evil. Now it is considered right/good. Why is this current definition the correct view? Were the past generations wrong or is the current generation wrong? If all it boils down to is preference then don't call it good, just what someone imposes on someone else by force or charisma.
How can you have 'good' or 'best' without an objective ideal, a final reference, an ultimate measure in which to compare good to? If each person makes their own ideal you are in a world in which values mean nothing.
From the way your world-view sees things, if my biological bag of matter works differently from your biological bag of matter and the chemicals in my brain respond and react differently from the ones in yours then who decides what good really is? What makes chemical reactions good or bad? They just are. Mind and personality make 'good' possible, not the way chemicals fizz together. Chemicals fizzing together determine nothing. Rocks dissolving thus forming chemicals mixing together do not think or know the difference between good and bad, only minds and personalities are able to reason and make qualitative judgments.
So you have the problem of explaining how life, thinking and intelligence can evolve from non-living non-thinking, irrational matter. This is where you should start in order for your world-view to make sense of itself.
What we see and experience in everyday life is personality coming from persons, life from the living, thinking from intelligence, beauty from the eye of the beholder. Explain how evolutionary science can make sense of this if you can. What do you base your foundational/core assumptions on, thin air, the promise that science is close to answering these questions?
God is necessary for there to be such a thing as 'good.'
Hi again Sara,
ReplyDeletePART 1
SARA: "1. Where have you gotten the idea that punctuated evolution is the more favored idea when the exact opposite is true?"
Stephen J. Gould pushed the idea of punctuated equilibrium, because he couldn't see how uniformaterianism jived. The transition forms are spotty at best. Many have jumped on his bandwagon because of this and what they believe is insufficient evidence of long gradual evolution.
SARA: "2. What is this about geological time... shrinking? If anything, we've underestimated, not overestimated."
The age of the universe is something that keeps fluctuating. At one point it was believe to be 20 billion years old. Others have offer less time, still others an eternal universe. What is your preference?
The general consensus, last time I checked, was favored to be about 13.7 billion years. When something is found that does not correspond to the current ideas, then the current ideas have to be adjusted to fit the new philosophical paradigm. And this is what we are dealing with in naturalism, a philosophical idea, not a scientific proof.
PART 2
ReplyDeleteThis has been noted by Vern S. Poythress, Science and Hermeneutics, (e-book) in documenting the Baconian Scientific Method and what it is and is not.
1.Gather data.
2.Formulate a general rule (hypothesis) accounting for the data.
3.Derive predictions from the hypothesis.
4.Check the predictions by making experiments.
5.If the predictions prove true, give the hypothesis the status of a (tentative) law. 6.Laws are always subject to further testing.
If a prediction proves false, return to step 1 and attempt to derive another hypothesis.
Underlying the Baconian method were the following assumptions.
1.Data are hard facts, about which there is and can be no dispute.
2.Hypotheses arise from seeing a pattern in the data and making an inductive generalization. The generalization says simply that all cases fit the observed pattern. Seeing a pattern is an act of insight that cannot be perfectly controlled, but once a pattern is seen, the generalization follows.
3.Predictions from a hypothesis are derived by simple deduction from the hypothesis itself.
4.Discarding or retaining a hypothesis is a relatively simply matter, depending merely on whether the additional experimental data support it.
5.Confirmed hypotheses are added to the existing list of general laws. Progress in science consists in piecemeal additions to the list of known laws...
The watershed in thinking about scientific progress occurred in 1962. In that year Thomas S. Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in which he rejected the classic view of science, the view associated with Baconian scientific method. Kuhn argued that science did not advance merely by a step-by-step inductive method. Research on specific problems always took place against the background of ASSUMPTION AND CONVICTIONS produced by previously existing science. In mature science, this background took the form of "paradigms," a cluster of beliefs, theories, values, standards for research, and exemplary research results that provided a framework for scientific advance within a whole field...
ReplyDeleteIn chapter 2, we analyzed Baconian scientific method as involving six fundamental assumptions. Over against these assumptions, we may summarize Kuhn's view in a series of counterassumptions:
1.Data are never "hard facts," completely independent of any theory. What counts as data depends on the disciplinary matrix, or framework of assumptions, that scientists use. All data is "theory-laden." It already presupposes, in its very status as data for a given experiment or a given theory, that the universe is organized in a way compatible with the assumptions of the science as a whole. The current disciplinary matrix affects how scientists make observations, what they think the observations actually measure, and what kinds of data or experiments are relevant to the outstanding open questions in their field.
2.Hypotheses do not arise from making a generalization in a vacuum. Rather, they arise from the combined influence of the overall disciplinary matrix in the field, detailed experimental results, the structure of theories in related areas that may suggest analogous solutions in the area currently under scrutiny, and expectations generated by the ruling disciplinary matrix as to what types of theory are most likely to be successful.
3.One cannot simply deduce a prediction from an isolated hypothesis. Predictions from a hypothesis depend not only on the hypothesis itself but on a surrounding body of theory specifying how the hypothesis is related to any particular experimental setup. One must also include here "observation theories," theories about any specialized apparatus used in measurements and the meaning of those measurements.
4.Discarding or retaining a hypothesis is almost never easy. Experiments can go wrong for a large number of reasons. Some unforeseen extra interference may not have been excluded from the experiment. Any one of a group of hypotheses or laws helping to relate the given hypothesis to the experiment may be invalid. One of these may have to be discarded, but a single experiment, or frequently even a whole series of experiments, does not indicate which of a series of connected, mutually dependent hypotheses is incorrect.
5.Most important, science does not advance merely by adding confirmed hypotheses to an existing atomistic list of laws. The laws of a given field of science are related to one another in a coherent way. Additions and subtractions affect the whole. Moreover, there can be times of "revolution" when the whole body of knowledge is recast.
End of quote
http://www.frame-poythress.org/Poythress_books/Science/bs0.html#contents
PART 4
ReplyDeleteThe point is that a lot of what you believe is governed by where you start, not by testable, repeatable scientific experiments. It depends on how the evidence is interpreted. In many incidents you are speculation on what appear to be one time events, like the alleged Big Bang or life from non-life.
One last point on your current point is that the complexity of the simple cell must have taken a long time to develop by naturalism. Some have said that it would have taken longer than the current time period the physical universe has been in existence.
What you do, as an evolutionist, is use the popular explanation of what might have happened as proof that it has because no one else is allowed to get a foot in the door. Phil Johnston wrote a book on the subject entitled 'The Wedge of Truth, Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism.
SARA: "3. What do you think is the mark of a good design? Most engineers I've ever talked to would say not simply functionality, but efficiency, utility, and in some cases, aesthetics. If you'd agree, then please explain the following inefficiencies/non-utilities:
1. The photoreceptors in the human eye face backwards, away from the direction of light.
a. The photoreceptors in ALL vertebrates face backwards.
b. Invertebrates have their photoreceptors facing forwards....
2. Vestigial DNA. Not only does it sit there not doing anything, taking up energy during development, but the same vestigial DNA sits there not doing anything in other organisms as well.
3. The Tailbone. Makes sense if we used to have a tail, as other primates do. Waste of energy in embryonic development if we didn't.
4. The Appendix. Again, makes sense if it used to serve a function and natural selection has since turned off the functionality, which is much more cost efficient than trying to wipe out a whole organ. Why put it there when it does nothing but give some handful of people appendicitis?
5. We eat and breath through the same hole, causing thousands of people to choke each year. Yet whales, which includes dolphins, get to eat and breath through different holes, thereby never choking on their food."
PART 5
ReplyDeleteSARA: "All of these are inefficient, three of them have no utility to modern humans, and I don't think aesthetics applies here. It strikes me as quite unintelligent, and exactly the sort of thing you'd expect from a slow, gradual process of small changes that build on each other; that might not be perfect, but are better than the alternative that was there at the time; by a process that does not say, "wait wait, be patient, I am going to be a fruit bat some day," but a process that says, "I need to copy myself with the greatest fidelity possible" and mistakes get in. There are more examples, these are just the ones off the top of my head. How can creationism explain how we have these things, why we have these things, and under what conditions we may have gotten these things? That's what it means to be able to explain something."
There are answers from both sides that we could banter about, but before we go there we need to determine the assumptions we bring to the problems and solutions by looking even further back to the philosophical questions that underline our particular world-views to see if they indeed do make sense.
With philosophical naturalism you have to come to the problems from a particular angle.
1. Either the universe created itself (if you hold to the opinion that most of science believes today - the universe had a beginning).
2. The universe is eternal and has always existed.
3. Something outside the universe created it.
Which one of these three hypotheses do you support, or,
4. You simply don't know, and therefore cannot rule out God over philosophical naturalism? The difficulty of this argument is that you are assuming that your philosophy has the best answers when it can't explain itself or know anything for certain about origins of the universe, life and being or truth, or anything else without borrowing from the Christian world-view that says there is objective, absolute, ultimate knowledge that comes from God.
If you simply don't know then why is what you have to say of any value to you or anyone else? Would you not say that what you believe to be reality should be based on what is true?
Hi Sara,
ReplyDeleteIn my answer to your third response you must have gathered that we are on the same line of thought that Randy and Walter are pursuing on the other thread. So please get acquainted with the argument for it precedes evolution and origins of the universe.
My reasoning is, in order for you to come up with a coherent world-view you need to have a reasonable answer to which your starting points - evolution, etc - rest upon. If either of us are wrong about origins then we have built our whole foundation on wild speculation. So, in my logic, we need to go one step beyond that. Let's try and establish if your world-view is indeed reasonable, or resting in thin air, and you can do the same with mine.
peter, you said,
ReplyDelete"Stephen J. Gould pushed the idea of punctuated equilibrium, because he couldn't see how uniformaterianism jived. The transition forms are spotty at best. Many have jumped on his bandwagon because of this and what they believe is insufficient evidence of long gradual evolution."
who? who are these "many" who have jumped on the "punctuated" bandwagon. please name scientists/science NOT from 30-40 years ago. as i explained (at March 31, 2011 10:26 AM http://postrefugee.blogspot.com/2011/03/ultimate-questions.html?showComment=1301585161249#c6841567850372052537 ) it's BOTH punctuated and gradual... "punctuated/gradual and uniformatarianism, are strawmen problems/terms that only creationists keep alive. there are not two "camps" of EVILutionists duking it out based on their personal "preferences" or "opinions" about evolution.
further, the fossil evidence for "transitions" is just getting better and better everyday. i put transitions" in quotes because as i've explained to you before, the whole idea of "transitions" is a bit of a misnomer: every species is a transition species - it just depends on where you "stop the film" as to what the "fixed species" and what the "transitions" are. those "transitional fossils" (i.e., Eusthenopteron) existed for millions of years. they're perfectly legitimate species in their own right, and so might be offended were they to know we consider them "merely" transitions from this to that "real" species. (i'm kind of joking here, but the point is entirely valid.)
transitions:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.livescience.com/3306-fossils-reveal-truth-darwin-theory.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/02/photogalleries/darwin-birthday-evolution/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html
anybody know how to make a link "hot" here?
ReplyDeletestandard html
ReplyDeletehttp://www.htmlcodetutorial.com/linking/_A.html
Hi Walter,
ReplyDeleteWhat I do to make the link hot is scroll over/highlight the link with my mouse, right click on my mouse pad and then hit 'Open link' or the 'O.' I work from Mozilla Firefox though. I don't know if Internet Explorer has the same features.
Yes, that does seem to cover your butt, doesn't it. You can have it both ways, gradual and punctuated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould
Both Gould and Niles Eldredge pushed this theory. The embarrassment of the fossil record is what caused these men and others to jettison slow gradual evolution in favor of this quick, hard to trace evolution.
If both forms are possible and both contribute, then we should be seeing these transitions evolving in the world today, and definitely in the fossil record.
Are you sure the fossil record is being read correctly? Similarity does not necessarily equate to common ancestry.
I like the analogy describing the transitional links this way: looking at a frame from the beginning of the movie, then a frame from the middle of the movie, then one from the end and drawing your conclusions on what the movie was about based on from these three frames.
It is the same point I argued about with Pam and you way back when. That is that you take something that is similar in function or design and draw the conclusions that because it is similar it has to be linked to a common ancestor, not just because it shares a common environment.
Of all the countless experiments through countless generations done on fruit flies by bombarding them with radiation to create mutations, can you say that there is a new kind produced through the ancestry that is not a mutated fruit fly but some other form of life? Can you show me an example of a transition in progress that has not been artificially and intelligently altered (i.e. natural) in a lab, or by man manipulating the breeding process by intelligent means, that is not open to debate?
As I said, there are different ways of interpreting the evidence depending on your starting point and world-view. That is why we need to go beyond this and find out what motives and underlying assumptions govern each perspective world-view. Remember, and this is something Pam argued vehemently against, all science was once philosophy and some still is - evolutionary science and science of origins being examples of philosophical naturalism.
WALTER,
ReplyDeletePart 1 of 2
further, the fossil evidence for "transitions" is just getting better and better everyday.
Really? I know this won’t even make a dent in you because you are irrevocably committed to Darwinism, but here are some highly credible contemporary scientists who disagree with you. And it should be noted that most of them are philosophically committed to Darwinism:
”Large evolutionary innovations are not well understood. None has ever been observed and we hav ho idea whether any may be in progress. There is no good fossil record of any.” Paul S. Wesson, Beyond Natural Selection, Cambridge, MIT Press, 1991 p. 206
”There is no theoretical reason that would permit us to expect that evolutionary lines would increase in complexity with time; there is also no empirical evidence that this happens.” John Maynard Smith F.R.S., The Major Evolutionary Transitions, Nature, 374, 1995 p. 227-32
”The fossil record of evolutionary change within single evolutionary lineages is very poor. If evolution is true, species originate through changes of ancestral species: one might expect to be able to see this in the fossil record. In fact it can rarely be seen. In 1859 Darwin could not cite a single example.” Zoologist Mark Ridley, World’s Classics Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1996, p. 227 (Note here that Ridley’s doctoral advisor while at Oxford was none other than Richard Dawkins)
So…what has been the result of a century and a half of frantic searching for support of Darwinism in the fossil record?
Paleontologist David M. Raup of the Field Museum of Natural History, which houses one of the largest fossil collections in the world said: ”We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time.” Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology, Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, January 1979, p. 25
”The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.” Stephen J. Gould, Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History, 1977, p. 86
WALTER,
ReplyDeletePart 2 of 2
”When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere. Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that’s how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution.” Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History, Time Frames: The Evolution of Punctuated Equilibria, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1985, pp. 144-145
Eldredge goes on to make an astonishing admission:
We paleontologists have said that the history of life supports [the story of gradual adaptive change] knowing all the while it does not.”
I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil [a fossil which is ancestral or transitional] for which one could make a watertight argument.” Colin Patterson, F.R.S., Cited by Pervical Davis and Dean H. Kenyon in Of Pandas and People, Dallas, Haughton Publishing Co., 1989, p. 106
May of the branches [of the Tree of Life], large as well as small, are cryptogenic (cannot be traced into ancestors). Some of these gaps are surely caused by the incompleteness of the fossil record, but that cannot be the sole reason for the cryptogenic nature of some families, many invertebrate orders, all invertebrate classes, and all metazoan phyla.” James Valentine, On The Origin of Phyla Chicago, Chicago University Press 2004, p. 35
WALT: i put transitions" in quotes because as i've explained to you before, the whole idea of "transitions" is a bit of a misnomer: every species is a transition species - it just depends on where you "stop the film" as to what the "fixed species" and what the "transitions" are. those "transitional fossils" (i.e., Eusthenopteron) existed for millions of years. they're perfectly legitimate species in their own right, and so might be offended were they to know we consider them "merely" transitions from this to that "real" species. (i'm kind of joking here, but the point is entirely valid.)
“Every species is a transition species”?? Lol. “Misnomer”? Only because of the laughable and utter failure to find convincing transitional forms (and they’ve even tried to fabricate a few…but darn!...they kept getting caught!).
What to do, what to do…..??!! Oh! We’ve got it! We’ll just posit that everything is a transitional form….
… the fossil evidence for "transitions" is just getting better and better everyday…..??!!
Oh, I bet it is. How could it help but?
Bwa...ha…haa...haaa…haaaa…haaaaaaaaa
Peace.
One problem I see with gradualism, is the fact that there are some species that are tens to hundreds of millions of years old.
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't environmental stress cause any sort of alterations in these examples?
They've all endured multiple ice ages, meteor impacts...all sorts of drastic changes.
Take the sandhill crane, for example.
It still exists just as it did 10 million years ago.
We know for a fact that there have been many huge changes in the environment during this period, and yet it remains unchanged.
How?
I can understand the reasoning behind the argument that deep-sea dwelling creatures may have had less extreme differences to deal with. But the crane was here on the surface, along with everything else, for ten million years...and still flys today.
How can that be?
Hi all,
ReplyDeleteApologies for the delay, but this will probably be normal, with the class schedule and all. Speaking of which, to answer Randy's question first, I am a grad student at Georgetown University in their Security Studies Program. The two classes that have the bulk of my reading are a South Asia regional security class and an economic policy instruments class. That's actually a lot more interesting than it sounds, but I am also kind of a nerd. One great thing about grad school, other than getting cool fun stuff to read, is that it helps develop the ability to actually evaluate what you read, critique arguments, and make your own arguments. For example, in my South Asia class, in the 100+ pages of reading every week, we get at least two articles making different arguments to explain a particular phenomenon. What we talk through in class is not just the history behind and of the event itself, but also which authors make the best arguments. Who marshalls the best evidence, what sources are used, are those sources reliable, is the argument logical, and most importantly, if it is a predictive work, how does the prediction match up against the real world? This is important because in order to explain something, to answer a specific question, you have to be able to show why, how, and under what conditions. Otherwise, you haven't explained much of anything. And this is true whether you are doing theoretical physics or public policy research, or anything in between. The process is the same: question to theory (which is simply a framework for thinking about and organizing evidence and data - the best theories will allow you to organize in such a way that you can learn the most about the question and hence have an accurate representation of the world) to hypothesis to definitions of variables to data collection to data analysis to accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis.
Another brief aside I want to make is to address one of Peter's earlier questions about the origin of consciousness and self replication. The short answer is, there are no solid answers yet, but people are working on it. If you can tolerate Dawkins for about 20 seconds and skip to the 8:10 mark of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vueDC69jRjE he answers a question about what he thinks are the three most important biological questions that haven't yet been solved and he lists the origin of consciousness and why we have it, the origin of the first self replicator, and why we have sex, by which he means why we have sexual reproduction as opposed to only asexual reproduction, which is a much more reliable way of getting more of your genes into the next generation, 100% as opposed to 50%. This is related to the aside about explanations because these types of things, especially the origin of self replicators, are about explaining the explanations. I think its easier to explain a question, then work backwards to explain explanations rather than go all the way back and work forwards. If you try to go back and work forwards, you can never be sure that you went back far enough. Plus, working backwards leaves open the possibility that there will always be explanations to explain and always more things to learn, which I think is exciting.
Last aside I promise. Stephen Jay Gould's biggest beef with gradual evolution was not about the process of beneficial gene mutations gaining greater frequency in the population to become a normal part of the genome. He was still a Darwinian. His beef was with the rate of mutation. Rate of mutation depends on a lot of things and there is current work going on to develop more nuanced views of it. Organisms with shorter generational spans have greater mutation rates, as do males in sexually reproducing species for essentially the same reason: more opportunities for genes to copy themselves in a given time period. I copy my genes 48 times a year. The average 27 year old male probably copies his genes hundreds of thousands of times a year. Apparently a C--G letter combo is also more prone to variation that other letter combinations (ftp://ftp.apop.allenpress.com/EP-inbox/plbi-07-02-collect/plbi-07-02-03.pdf). But when Gould talked about rates of mutation, especially in organisms with large genomes, he was still working on the modern geological timescale. He was not a saltationist. Saltation refers to macromutational jumps resulting in significant changes in phenotypic expressions. To try and put this into an evolutionary mold, a large portion of a population would have to all have the same beneficial macromutational jumps within one or two generations to produce a whole new species with a whole genome. For one organism to do this is statistically outrageous and for a whole population to do this exponentially more so. In any event, this is not what Gould was about. No sane biologist is.
ReplyDeleteIn a very real sense, Gould was a gradualist. But here's where he differs from someone like Dawkins. Gould's characterization of rates of mutation for any given species can be thought of as having two speeds, stop and fast. Very fast still means over tens or hundreds of thousands of years, which is short on a geological time scale, and in response to a pressure. Stop means few or no relevant mutations that would produce any kind of phenotypic change, and these periods of stop last for hundreds of thousands or millions of years. His emphasis was on the periods of stasis in which there was no active pressure on the organisms to change, so they didn't. As I understand Gould was also a proponent of species selection. Dawkins' characterization of mutation rates has several from very very slow to very fast to moderate to moderately fast and so on. Still all on a geological time scale. The point here is that not all selection pressures are created equal and some pressures will promote faster rates than others. But over long periods of time, there will be an aggregate rate of mutation that will be relatively slow. Dawkins is also a proponent of gene selection. They are both gradualists in the sense that they are not saltationists and Dawkins is not the caricature of a gradualist in the sense that the aggregate rate of mutation is not same rate that occurs steadily with every generation.
The best evidence for evolution is not even the fossils anyway, but the genetics and relatedness. There are different levels of analysis you can put to DNA to get a different measure of relatedness. For example, If I lay out my family tree out to my grandparents and my first cousins, I can use one level of DNA analysis, a whole gene, to say how much related I am to any other person on that tree. I know I get 23 chromosomes from each parent. Therefore, for any given gene that I have, there is a 50% probability that one parent or the other will have that gene. The same is true of my brother. Therefore, for any gene I have, there is a 50% probability that my brother has it. Parent to offspring is 50% and sibling to sibling is 50%. Which means grandparent to grandchild is 25%, aunt or uncle to niece or nephew is 25% and first cousin to first cousin is 12.5%. Any gene that I have, there is a 12.5 probability that any one of my first cousins will have it. I can map out my whole family tree as far as I want and be able to put a probability to it. That is relatedness within species.
ReplyDeleteRelatedness within species looks at different levels of analysis. One level of analysis looks strictly at base letter codes. This is the methodology that gives you the 98% rate between humans and chimpanzees. You literally juxtapose genes to genes, base pairs to base pairs and count to see where letters are different. If on a particular gene, chimps have a few more letters than humans, that counts as a difference. You can do the same thing with any pair of animals and get a percentage of sameness between base pairs. If you take one, say the FOXP2 gene involved in vocalization in mammals and some others, and plot it out across species, you get a branching tree of who is related to who and by how much. You can continue this process with subsequent genes and get the same tree showing who is related to who and by how much. It is exactly the same concept as my own family tree, where the percent probabilities were also measures of who each was related to and by how much. Other levels of analysis including looking specifically at protein production, non-coding genes that help determine what the coding genes do, and regions where genes have been gained or lost. Not every level of analysis will give you the same number; if you applied the base pair to base pair method to me and my cousin you'd not get the same 12.5% as you would when comparing whole genes. It doesn't mean we're not related. It just means you are answering a different question about relatedness. The hypothesis that evolution gives you is that if true, each comparison of genomes using any of the levels of analysis should give you the same distribution of who is related to who. Much of this research is new, within the last few years, so it is obviously not complete yet. But it is easily falsifiable, which makes it very good hypothesis. And so far, what has been compared across various species keeps producing the same account of who is related to who, and therefore is very much in support of evolution.
It seems I've ended up out of order.... Or I've just double posted again. I guess I need to wait longer in between.
ReplyDeleteSara,
ReplyDeleteWelcome back.
I want to respond in detail to your latest two posts, but I will need a couple of days to re-gather the information. In short, your (and science's) appeal to the genetic record for evidence of evolution is showing signs of being even less fruitful than the fossil record. The further we peer into our microscopes on the uber-micro level the more obvious it is becoming that there is even greater complexity and design-specificity there than on the macro level. Far from “proving” Darwinism, the genetic research is refuting Darwinism even more throughly than has the “disappointing” fossil record. Give me a couple of days and I will post more specifically on this.
In the meantime, I would be interested in a response from you on my post at April 1, 2011.
Last aside I promise. Stephen Jay Gould's biggest beef with gradual evolution was not about the process of beneficial gene mutations gaining greater frequency in the population to become a normal part of the genome. He was still a Darwinian.
I agree that Gould maintained his Darwinism. But just as with all of the scientists I quoted in the above post, they remain committed to Darwinism despite the evidence, not because of it. The fossil record did not yield the “evidence” they were looking for, so now they turn to genetics hoping to find support for their presupposed philosophy (atheism—there is no God) there.
Rate of mutation depends on a lot of things and there is current work going on to develop more nuanced views of it.
And:
To try and put this into an evolutionary mold, a large portion of a population would have to all have the same beneficial macromutational jumps within one or two generations to produce a whole new species with a whole genome. For one organism to do this is statistically outrageous and for a whole population to do this exponentially more so.
Indeed, a more “nuanced” view is needed, for all of the current models have miserably failed to produce convincing evidence of Darwinism. And as you so conveniently point out, they are still trying to force the evidence into an “evolutionary mold,” and that unsuccessfully. That's not science. It is completely antithetical to the scientific method. But, alas, when one is committed to philosophical Darwinism one cannot admit of any other possibility.
So what to do? Well, they dismiss the lack of evidence in the fossil record and turn to the genetic record. But there are already clear signs that genetics will be even less fruitful for them than was the fossil record. As I will demonstrate, they are finding that mutational “jumps” on the molecular level are even more “statistically outrageous” than “jumps” on the macro level.
I wonder where they will turn next?
Peace.
ahhh.... the perfunctory out of context misquote where in a moment of candor the "evolutionist" "admits" evolution is not supported by evidence... whoa! who knew gould didn't think evolution was true...
ReplyDeleteWALTER,
ReplyDeleteahhh.... the perfunctory out of context misquote where in a moment of candor the "evolutionist" "admits" evolution is not supported by evidence... whoa! who knew gould didn't think evolution was true...
"Out of context..?" "missquote..?" I gave you quotes, book titles, publishesr, date and page numbers--it shouldn't be too difficult for you to prove "misquote" OR "out of context" IF that is the case. AND I noted that every one of the individuals I quoted were committed Darwinists. These are "your guys," not mine.
I bet you were quite an accomplished dodgeballer back in the day, were'nt you?
The bottom line is that there is nowhere near the "concensus" on the fossil record supporting evolution that you are claiming. I posted a fairly solid rebuttal to your claim of "the fossil record is getting better every day," and even used well-respected scientists (no less than 8 of them) who are on your "side" of the debate to support my argument.
"...prefunctory out of context misquote" is the best you can do?
randy,
ReplyDeleteare you aware of project steve (as in "gould")?
those are "misquotes" in the sense that they are out of context.
ReplyDeletehere's a whole page of out-of-context quotes of just gould, eldridge, and punctuated equilibrium.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part3.html
WALTER,
ReplyDeletethose are "misquotes" in the sense that they are out of context. there's a whole page of out-of-context quotes of just gould, eldridge, and punctuated equilibrium.
So demonstrate how the 9 quotes I offered are "out of context."
You wouldn't accept this weak "out of context" argument from me. Likewise, I don't accept it from you.
The fact still remains that the fossil record has simply failed to produce what should be copious and undeniable evidence of Darwinian Evolution. To my knowledge there exist no airtight proofs of speciation (your comical contention that "every species is a transitional species" notwithstanding). If there were, every scientist committed to evolution, including the ones I quoted, would be shouting it from the roof-tops.
You are simply posturing here.
WALTER,
ReplyDeleteBTW: It should be noted that only ONE of the NINE quotes I offered was from Gould.
Hi Sara,
ReplyDeletePART 1
You said: “Another brief aside I want to make is to address one of Peter's earlier questions about the origin of consciousness and self replication. The short answer is, there are no solid answers yet, but people are working on it.”
That is evolutionary sciences broken record. They are always working on it with the promises to come.
SARA: “If you can tolerate Dawkins for about 20 seconds and skip to the 8:10 mark of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vueDC69jRjE he answers a question about what he thinks are the three most important biological questions that haven't yet been solved and he lists the origin of consciousness and why we have it, the origin of the first self replicator, and why we have sex, by which he means why we have sexual reproduction as opposed to only asexual reproduction, which is a much more reliable way of getting more of your genes into the next generation, 100% as opposed to 50%. This is related to the aside about explanations because these types of things, especially the origin of self replicators, are about explaining the explanations. I think its easier to explain a question, then work backwards to explain explanations rather than go all the way back and work forwards. If you try to go back and work forwards, you can never be sure that you went back far enough. Plus, working backwards leaves open the possibility that there will always be explanations to explain and always more things to learn, which I think is exciting.”
It is the same old story with evolutionary science with the adage that 'the present is the key to the past.' But to do that you are making a variety of assumptions, such as that conditions were the same or similar then to what they are now, or the rate of decay is the same, or similar, or that you have identified all the factors involved. You can't be sure that that is the case either.
PART 2
ReplyDeleteSARA: Stephen Jay Gould's biggest beef with gradual evolution was not about the process of beneficial gene mutations gaining greater frequency in the population to become a normal part of the genome. He was still a Darwinian… In a very real sense, Gould was a gradualist. But here's where he differs from someone like Dawkins. Gould's characterization of rates of mutation for any given species can be thought of as having two speeds, stop and fast… In a very real sense, Gould was a gradualist. But here's where he differs from someone like Dawkins. Gould's characterization of rates of mutation for any given species can be thought of as having two speeds, stop and fast.
I agree with what Randy said: “I agree that Gould maintained his Darwinism. But just as with all of the scientists I quoted in the above post, they remain committed to Darwinism despite the evidence, not because of it. The fossil record did not yield the “evidence” they were looking for, so now they turn to genetics hoping to find support for their presupposed philosophy (atheism—there is no God) there.”
The point I was making was not with the beneficial gene mutation. Both Gould and Eldredge disagreed with Darwin in the process being slow and gradual because of the lack of transitional fossils, so Im not referring to the mutation rate. Transitional fossils are the problem. Here is the way Gould put it in 1977,
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is INFERENCE, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
S.J.Gould, Evolution's Erradic Pace, Natural History, The American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 86, No 5, May, 1977, pp. 12-16, p. 14.
From Wikipedia (sorry, it was convenient instead of doing the groundwork): In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[2] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] as well as their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is VITUALLY NONEXISTENT IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
PART 3
ReplyDeleteSARA: Relatedness within species looks at different levels of analysis. One level of analysis looks strictly at base letter codes. This is the methodology that gives you the 98% rate between humans and chimpanzees. You literally juxtapose genes to genes, base pairs to base pairs and count to see where letters are different. If on a particular gene, chimps have a few more letters than humans, that counts as a difference. You can do the same thing with any pair of animals and get a percentage of sameness between base pairs. If you take one, say the FOXP2 gene involved in vocalization in mammals and some others, and plot it out across species, you get a branching tree of who is related to who and by how much…. You can continue this process with subsequent genes and get the same tree showing who is related to who and by how much. It is exactly the same concept as my own family tree, where the percent probabilities were also measures of who each was related to and by how much. …
[The gene to gene example doesn't work for me as I will explain later]
SARA continuing: Other levels of analysis including looking specifically at protein production, non-coding genes that help determine what the coding genes do, and regions where genes have been gained or lost. Not every level of analysis will give you the same number; if you applied the base pair to base pair method to me and my cousin you'd not get the same 12.5% as you would when comparing whole genes. It doesn't mean we're not related. It just means you are answering a different question about relatedness. The hypothesis that evolution gives you is that if true, each comparison of genomes using any of the levels of analysis should give you the same distribution of who is related to who. Much of this research is new, within the last few years, so it is obviously not complete yet. But it is easily falsifiable, which makes it very good hypothesis. And so far, what has been compared across various species keeps producing the same account of who is related to who, and therefore is very much in support of evolution.
PART 4
ReplyDeleteNot so fast there Sara. Here is what Denyse O'Leary had to say in 'By Design or By Chance', p. 55,
"Genes 'R' Not Us.
When the Human Genome Project announced the completion of its map in 2000, one curious fact stood out. Fewer than 30,000 genes were responsible for organizing an entire human being, about one third of previous estimates of 80,000 to 100,000. In other words, human beings were said to have about twice the number of genes of a fruit fly.
The modernist interpretation roared quickly through the mainstream media: This is quite a 'comedown' for arrogant humans; just think how lowly we are – not a little lower than the angels, but a little higher than the fruit flies…The true meaning of the discovery is that we are not our genes. If we only have a few more genes than a fruit fly, there are just not enough genes to make us ourselves…Since then, there has been a great reduction in roaring from the mainstream media about what the human genome proves. The recent DNA hybridization studies of the chimpanzee shows estimates of 1% difference from the human genome. This might have been expected to lead to an overwhelming din of materialist lectures on the insignificance of humans, but it didn't. Again, that is because the SIMILARITY presents a problem to the materialist. Anyone can tell the vast, obvious difference between a human being and a chimpanzee.
Things got worse. In 2003, the number of human genes was revised downward to just fewer than 25,000, a few more than Caenorhabditis elegans, the tiny soil-dwelling roundworms…
Here is what we know about the human genome: Our genes work together in complex combinations, talking to each other constantly as they direct the building of a bewildering variety of proteins, the machines that carry out the operations in each cell that keep us alive. The real tough part is that, instead of four building blocks, as genes do, proteins have 20. They are arrayed in three-dimensional machine-like structures of dazzling complexity, hundreds of molecules long. Plus, there are probably 10 times as many proteins as genes.
Anyone who wants to study DNA, the language of life that utters living beings, must learn the languages of the proteins, to see what genes translate into."
End of quote.
This speaks volumes about information and purpose in the grand design by God, not chance processes in the beginning of such unique beings.
What happened to my other three posts to Sara? They were here???
ReplyDeleteWhat is going on here????
ReplyDeleteIt did not take my second post? Here we go again.
It just deleted my third post???????????
ReplyDeleteCan anyone offer any suggestions?
I'm going to leave the other three posts until tomorrow. This is not working.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that if you post too many comments too quickly, Google deletes it from the thread, and moves it to a spam folder.
ReplyDeleteMy suggestion would be to wait a few minutes between each post.
There are no settings I can adjust on it.
SARA,
ReplyDeleteRelatedness within species looks at different levels of analysis. One level of analysis looks strictly at base letter codes. This is the methodology that gives you the 98% rate between humans and chimpanzees. You literally juxtapose genes to genes, base pairs to base pairs and count to see where letters are different. If on a particular gene, chimps have a few more letters than humans, that counts as a difference.
Geneticists disagree. Note:
A chimp may share 98 percent of its DNA with ourselves but it is not 98 percent human: it is not human at all--it is a chimp. And does the fact that we have genes in common with a mouse, or a banana say something about human nature? Some claim that genes will tell us what we really are. The idea is absurd. ---Steve Jones, The Language of the Genes, Revised Edition, London, Harper Collins, 2000, p. 35
To put it simply, there are far, far too few genes in the human genome to account for the incredible complexity of our inherited characteristics, let alone for the great differences between plants and humans and even animals and humans.
You're above statement is significantly behind the current "genetic curve."
Hi Sara,
ReplyDeleteSara said: “Another brief aside I want to make is to address one of Peter's earlier questions about the origin of consciousness and self replication. The short answer is, there are no solid answers yet, but people are working on it.”
That is evolutions broken record. They are always working on it with the promise to come.
SARA: “If you can tolerate Dawkins for about 20 seconds and skip to the 8:10 mark of this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vueDC69jRjE he answers a question about what he thinks are the three most important biological questions that haven't yet been solved and he lists the origin of consciousness and why we have it, the origin of the first self replicator, and why we have sex, by which he means why we have sexual reproduction as opposed to only asexual reproduction, which is a much more reliable way of getting more of your genes into the next generation, 100% as opposed to 50%. This is related to the aside about explanations because these types of things, especially the origin of self replicators, are about explaining the explanations. I think its easier to explain a question, then work backwards to explain explanations rather than go all the way back and work forwards. If you try to go back and work forwards, you can never be sure that you went back far enough. Plus, working backwards leaves open the possibility that there will always be explanations to explain and always more things to learn, which I think is exciting.”
It is the same old story with evolutionary science in the adage that the present is the key to the past. But to do that you are making a variety of assumptions, such as the conditions were the same or similar then to what they are now, or the rate of decay is the same, or that you have identified all the factors involved. You can’t be sure that that is the case either.
I had to go with anonymous. My Google account would not let me submit a post and trying to get reinstated is impossible without changing my e-mail address because I don't have a mobile/cell phone to verify my account. It is a vicious circle.
Peter Huff.
PART 2
ReplyDeleteSARA: Stephen Jay Gould's biggest beef with gradual evolution was not about the process of beneficial gene mutations gaining greater frequency in the population to become a normal part of the genome. He was still a Darwinian… In a very real sense, Gould was a gradualist. But here's where he differs from someone like Dawkins. Gould's characterization of rates of mutation for any given species can be thought of as having two speeds, stop and fast… In a very real sense, Gould was a gradualist. But here's where he differs from someone like Dawkins. Gould's characterization of rates of mutation for any given species can be thought of as having two speeds, stop and fast.
I agree with what Randy said: “I agree that Gould maintained his Darwinism. But just as with all of the scientists I quoted in the above post, they remain committed to Darwinism despite the evidence, not because of it. The fossil record did not yield the “evidence” they were looking for, so now they turn to genetics hoping to find support for their presupposed philosophy (atheism—there is no God) there.”
The point I was making was not with beneficial gene mutations. Both Gould and Eldredge disagreed with Darwin in the process being slow and gradual because of the lack of transitional fossils, so I'm not referring to the mutation rate. Transitional fossils are the problem. Here is the way Gould put it in 1977,
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is INFERENCE, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
S.J.Gould, Evolutions Erratic Pace, Natural History, The American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 86, No 5, May, 1977, pp. 12-16, p. 14.
WIKIPEDIA: "In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[2] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] as well as their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is VITUALLY NONEXISTENT IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
PART 3
ReplyDeleteSARA: Stephen Jay Gould's biggest beef with gradual evolution was not about the process of beneficial gene mutations gaining greater frequency in the population to become a normal part of the genome. He was still a Darwinian… In a very real sense, Gould was a gradualist. But here's where he differs from someone like Dawkins. Gould's characterization of rates of mutation for any given species can be thought of as having two speeds, stop and fast… In a very real sense, Gould was a gradualist. But here's where he differs from someone like Dawkins. Gould's characterization of rates of mutation for any given species can be thought of as having two speeds, stop and fast.
I agree with what Randy said: “I agree that Gould maintained his Darwinism. But just as with all of the scientists I quoted in the above post, they remain committed to Darwinism despite the evidence, not because of it. The fossil record did not yield the “evidence” they were looking for, so now they turn to genetics hoping to find support for their presupposed philosophy (atheism—there is no God) there.”
The point I was making was not with the beneficial gene mutation. Both Gould and Eldredge disagreed with Darwin in the process being slow and gradual because of the lack of transitional fossils, so Im not referring to the mutation rate. Transitional fossils are the problem. Here is the way Gould put it in 1977,
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is INFERENCE, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
S.J.Gould, Evolutions Erratic Pace, Natural History, The American Museum of Natural History, Vol. 86, No 5, May, 1977, pp. 12-16, p. 14.
WIKIPEDIA: "In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould published a landmark paper developing this theory and called it punctuated equilibria.[2] Their paper built upon Ernst Mayr's theory of geographic speciation,[3] I. Michael Lerner's theories of developmental and genetic homeostasis,[4] as well as their own empirical research.[5][6] Eldredge and Gould proposed that the degree of gradualism commonly attributed to Charles Darwin is VITUALLY NONEXISTENT IN THE FOSSIL RECORD, and that stasis dominates the history of most fossil species."
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_equilibrium
PETER,
ReplyDeleteLooks like we may have lost Sara.
PETER,
ReplyDeleteOf course, I keep expecting Walter to jump in on this thread, but his attempts thus far have been rather half-hearted.
How are you doing?
Hi Randy,
ReplyDeleteThat is too bad about Sara. I was looking forward to seeing where this went. Hopefully she is just overloaded in work right now. We are just scratching the surface. There is a lot to be uncovered yet.
Hi Randy,
ReplyDeleteI think Walter needs time to regroup. So far his answers to your questions have been flopping back and forth like a fish out of water.
I think you have him stumped for a sensible answer that doesn't acknowledge the necessity of the First Cause, and to him the dreadful complications it creates to his world-view.
My friendly atheist here in town went to a city down the road to hear a preacher on ethics. (^8
The ethical case has really got him thinking! Here is what he had to say:
"The question of the origin of ethics and morals has been on my mind for the last little while, ever since some of us went to [town deleted] back on April 7th to participate in a forum put on by Baptist minister [name deleted] at the [name of library deleted] library."
Peter,
ReplyDeleteThat's encouraging news concerning your atheist friend! These are sound, rational arguments, but as you well know unless the Spirit convinces the mind and convicts the heart, blindness and hardness remain. I do pray that your friend is experiencing the first motions of grace.
May the Spirit blow where He will to the glory of our Eternal Father.
Grace to you, my dear brother.
It would truly be a miracle.
ReplyDeleteGrace and peace to you Randy, my brother and friend in Christ!
Peter
What does it mean to "convict the heart"?
ReplyDeleteI have not heard that phraseology before.
This word "convict" is usually associated with the subject area of crime.
I was just wondering whether we caught Rcofield in another one of his Freudian slips.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous,
ReplyDeleteI am presuming you are not Peter Huff (who is now posting under "Anonymous" also. If so, one of you needs to change your posting name for the sake of avoiding confusion here.
What does it mean to "convict the heart"? I have not heard that phraseology before. This word "convict" is usually associated with the subject area of crime. I was just wondering whether we caught Rcofield in another one of his Freudian slips.
-----------------------------------
John 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
No "Freudian slip" here.
Hi Randy,
ReplyDeleteYes there is another anonymous person here. I know what it means for the spirit to convict the hearth of sin.
I can't get back onto Google because it requires I have a cell phone, hence Anonymous. What format do you use to post?
Peter
Hey Peter,
ReplyDeleteYeah, I couldn't imagine that it was you. That post has the "feel" of GOLDENEAGLES, but I could be wrong.
I'm posting with my Google Account.
Did I hear my name mentioned?
ReplyDeleteGOLDENEAGLES,
ReplyDeleteAhhhh.... I was right. :-)
Welcome aboard. Glad to have you along.
I suppose my response adequately answered your question about the convicting work of the Holy Spirit?
Peace.
GOLDENEAGLES,
ReplyDeleteGiven your penchant for reincarnation, you might find this article interesting:
http://www.albertmohler.com/2010/08/30/never-having-to-say-youre-dead-the-new-interest-in-reincarnation/
Hey Golden Eagles,
ReplyDeleteGlad to see you here.
As you can see, the debates continue.
If you ever want to post a topic (any subject) for discussion, just let me know
RcoField says, "Ahhhh.... I was right ..."
ReplyDeleteYes, it seems like the truth has a fragrance, and you can tell what it is when it stands in front of you. Good for you. On the other hand, someday I hope you will come to understand that the truth is a good thing, and not a bad thing, not something to be afraid of, not something to crush under your heel like a spent cigarette butt.
For example, here is a promise made by the Master Jesus Christ, translated from the original Hebrew (?) or was that Greek (?) into plain English.
John 14:12 - "Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me, the works that I do, shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto my father."
The issue for you, I believe, is to figure out why you are afraid of the truth that this promise conveys.
Obviously, if the foregoing is not an ultimate question, what else could be?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGOLDENEAGLES,
ReplyDeleteFor example, here is a promise made by the Master Jesus Christ, translated from the original Hebrew (?) or was that Greek (?) into plain English.
So, let me get this straight. You don't even know for sure what language Jn. 14:12 was written in originally, but you are quite sure your "interpretation" of it is correct and mine is wrong?
Lol. That is rich.
BTW: You didn't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back with your opening paragraph in the above post, did you? :-)
Peace.
RcoField says, "So, let me get this straight, So, let me get this straight. You don't even know for sure what language Jn. 14:12 was written in originally, but you are quite sure your "interpretation" of it is correct and mine is wrong?"
ReplyDeleteWe all have this in common, that we have faith, that whatever the original language was, that the most competent scholars translated it correctly. We can only base our interpretation on the translation.
Though, I am open to hearing your explanation of why this particular point of knowledge, whether the Gospel of John was translated from the Greek or the Hebrew, or perhaps some other language, has a bearing on the interpretation of this passage.
Beyond that, the most important issue here is whether you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has the POWER to enable you to walk on water for example, and has the AUTHORITY to transfer that power to whom he will. Do you believe that RcoField?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGOLDENEAGLES,
ReplyDelete"Though, I am open to hearing your explanation of why this particular point of knowledge, whether the Gospel of John was translated from the Greek or the Hebrew, or perhaps some other language, has a bearing on the interpretation of this passage."
In due time.
"Beyond that, the most important issue here is whether you believe that the Lord Jesus Christ has the POWER to enable you to walk on water for example, and has the AUTHORITY to transfer that power to whom he will. Do you believe that RcoField?"
Indeed, he has both the power and the authority--ALL power and authority, actually: Mt. 18 And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age." (Strange, isn't it, that he didn't mention anything about "walking on water" in that passage?) But then, the question is not whether he has the power and authority to do such, but whether or not Jn. 14:12 has anything whatsoever to do with performing miracles.
You are simply assuming that it does. You have yet to prove exegetically that it does, and that burden of proof still rests squarely on you.
Peace
GOLDENEAGLES,
ReplyDeleteJust saw your post @ April 28, 2011 4:41 AM. Busy weekend ahead of me, but I'll try to respond as soon as I can.
Hi Randy,
ReplyDeleteWalter's back and ready to continue! Looking forward to see how things develop.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGOLDENEAGLES,
ReplyDeleteWell, you did a commendable job of demonstrating from scripture that the miracles of Christ were for the purpose of affirming His Deity. You didn't however, do a very good job exegetically demonstrating that believers should be able to do the same (and greater), such as walk on water heal the lame, give sight to the blind, walk on water, raise the dead, etc.
So...let's just cut to the chase. You said:
"This is the promise, and the reality check, if you will. If the works of the Father do manifest through the disciple, the belief structure of that disciple represents the structure of truth to which the Lord Christ refers. If the works (you mean miracles here) of the Father do not manifest through the disciple, the belief structure of that disciple is not the structure of truth to which the Lord Christ refers."
You obviously think my "belief structure" is somehow inferior to yours, so let's apply your own "reality check" to you:
Please provide a list of "miracles" that you have performed, along with the necessary documentation and eyewitnesses necesary to validate said miracles.
I breathlessly await your reply. :-)
Peace.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteRcofield says, "You obviously think my "belief structure" is somehow inferior to yours ..."
ReplyDeleteNo, Rcofield, that is not what I think.
This is what I think:
I think that your belief structure, and not just yours, but the belief structure of all the organized branches of the Christian Community as we know it today, do not appear to be the belief structure to which the Master Jesus Christ referred in his promise, i.e. that belief structure which would enable the disciple to do the works that he did, and greater works.
The Master said, if we believe on him, we will be able to do the works that he did, and greater works than these.
What does it mean to believe on him? What does that really mean?
Those who really understand what this means, will be able to do the works that he did, and greater works.
Those who do not understand what this means, will NOT be able to do the works that he did, and greater works.
The correct belief structure is the key that will unlock this treasure house of divine power and talent for the disciple, according to the promise of Jesus Christ in John 14:12.
I apologize for my absence, folks.
ReplyDeleteI've had a family crisis that is requiring my attention, and may yet for a while.
Golden Eagles;
I've added your email address to the site's blog authors. I think google sent you an invitation. If you have any trouble, let me know.
Peter and Randy;
If you guys will post an email address, or add it to your profile, I'll add you guys as authors.
I'm going to be limited on my internet time, so I may be a day or two before I can check the spam folder, in case someone has trouble posting.
Thanks
My previous five-part post (the order of which was severely damagaged by the spam filter) on the subject of John 14:12, and the Teachings of Jesus Christ on the Miracle potential in every man and woman, has been moved to an actual blog post under the month of May (thanks to the authoring privilege given by MrMeaner) for which I am grateful. There, I have all five parts in order, and was able to improve formatting somewhat by use of the blockquote tag which is not available in comments. If you like, RcoField, you can repost your response above to that thread, and then we can go from there.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDelete.
.
Peter Huff, regarding your issue with your google account and the cell phone, the other night google served up a page to me requesting account verification, and would not let me back into my account unless I gave them my cell phone number. So I am wondering if this is the issue you faced as well. I bring this up because I noticed that I was given two options. First, a text message to a cell phone, or Second, a voice message to ANY phone, cell or landline. I am wondering if you missed that, i.e. that you can verify your account by giving them a landline number, which will be called automatically with a voice message with your account verification number. If a landline verification message will work for you, that would mean you wouldn't need to post as anonymous anymore. Also, if that does not work for you, OpenID is easy to sign up for.
Hi GoldenEagles,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the tips. I'll give them a try.
Peter