Posted on 05/20/2002 12:53:27 PM PDT by rpage3
See source for details....
Steve Gould was a blithering idiot.
Consider what Gould and other punk-eekers are saying. Punc-eek amounts to a claim that all meaningful evolutionary change takes place in peripheral areas, amongst tiny groups of animals which develop some genetic advantage, and then move out and overwhelm, outcompete, and replace the larger herds. They are claiming that this eliminates the need to spread genetic change through any sizeable herd of animals and, at the same time, is why we never find intermediate fossils (since there are never enough of these CHANGELINGS to leave fossil evidence).
Obvious problems with punctuated equilibria include, minimally:
1. It is a pure pseudoscience seeking to explain and actually be proved by a lack of evidence rather than by evidence (all the missing intermediate fossils). Similarly, Cotton Mather claimed that the fact that nobody had ever seen or heard a witch was proof they were there (if you could see or hear them, they wouldn't be witches...)2. PE amounts to a claim that inbreeding is the most major source of genetic advancement in the world. Apparently Steve Gould never saw Deliverance...
3. PE requires these tiny peripheral groups to conquer vastly larger groups of animals millions if not billions of times, which is like requiring Custer to win at the little Big Horn every day, for millions of years.
4. PE requires an eternal victory of animals specifically adapted to localized and parochial conditions over animals which are globally adapted, which never happens in real life.
5. For any number of reasons, you need a minimal population of any animal to be viable. This is before the tiny group even gets started in overwhelming the vast herds. A number of American species such as the heath hen became non-viable when their numbers were reduced to a few thousand; at that point, any stroke of bad luck at all, a hard winter, a skewed sex ratio in one generation, a disease of some sort, and it's all over. The heath hen was fine as long as it was spread out over the East coast of the U.S. The point at which it got penned into one of these "peripheral" areas which Gould and Eldredge see as the salvation for evolutionism, it was all over.
The sort of things noted in items 3 and 5 are generally referred to as the "gambler's problem", in this case, the problem facing the tiny group of "peripheral" animals being similar to that facing a gambler trying to beat the house in blackjack or roulette; the house could lose many hands of cards or rolls of the dice without flinching, and the globally-adapted species spread out over a continent could withstand just about anything short of a continental-scale catastrophe without going extinct, while two or three bad rolls of the dice will bankrupt the gambler, and any combination of two or three strokes of bad luck will wipe out the "peripheral" species. Gould's basic method of handling this problem is to ignore it.
And there's one other thing which should be obvious to anybody attempting to read through Gould and Eldridge's BS:
They are claiming that at certain times, amongst tiny groups of animals living in peripheral areas, a "speciation event(TM)" happens, and THEN the rest of it takes place. In other words, they are saying:
ASSUMING that Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happens, then the rest of the business proceeds as we have described in our scholarly discourse above!
Again, Gould and Eldridge require that the Abracadabra-Shazaam(TM) happen not just once, but countless billions of times, i.e. at least once for every kind of complex creature which has ever walked the Earth. They do not specify whether this amounts to the same Abracadabra-Shazaam each time, or a different kind of Abracadabra-Shazaam for each creature.
I ask you: How could anything be stupider or worse than that? What could possibly be worse than professing to believe in such a thing?
But people continue to do bad things and good things by their own free will… Pragmaticality? Next silly answer.
It is pragmatic to do so because you don't want the other person to do the same to you. It is bizarre to suggest that being honest is not pragmatic.
For example, murders committed in anger are not pragmatic, and are definitely wrong. Please, try harder.
This is the reason for morality and why someone runs into a burning building to save another?
Please continue…
Yes. I don't often ask for Justice, as that is a terrible thing to ask for, but sometimes it seems appropriate. It steams me that people are defending this 'gentle' man who 'never harmed anyone' while he was making snide remarks about God, humliating those in his classrooms that believed in God, and thinking that he could do what he wanted all through his life because he could simply admit he was 'wrong' when called into account. I'm not God, so perhaps he will be forgiven his tresspesses, but I doubt that God would allow such a thing to a man who was unrepentant throughout his life.
Tuor
No. It is bizarre to suggest pragmaticality is the reason for morality. Where did ‘this’ come from? How does it even answer the question pragmatically?
You obviously see a problem here, so why don't you be explicit? It wouldn't be fair for me to have to imagine what your criticism is, before trying to reply to it.
The Buddha answered, "Once upon a time there was a certain raja who called to his servant and said, 'Come, good fellow, go and gather together in one place all the men of Savatthi who were born blind... and show them an elephant.' 'Very good, sire,' replied the servant, and he did as he was told. He said to the blind men assembled there, 'Here is an elephant,' and to one man he presented the head of the elephant, to another its ears, to another a tusk, to another the trunk, the foot, back, tail, and tuft of the tail, saying to each one that that was the elephant.
"When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them and said to each, 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?'
"Thereupon the men who were presented with the head answered, 'Sire, an elephant is like a pot.' And the men who had observed the ear replied, 'An elephant is like a winnowing basket.' Those who had been presented with a tusk said it was a ploughshare. Those who knew only the trunk said it was a plough; others said the body was a grainery; the foot, a pillar; the back, a mortar; the tail, a pestle, the tuft of the tail, a brush.
"Then they began to quarrel, shouting, 'Yes it is!' 'No, it is not!' 'An elephant is not that!' 'Yes, it's like that!' and so on, till they came to blows over the matter.
"Brethren, the raja was delighted with the scene.
"Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus."
Then the Exalted One rendered this meaning by uttering this verse of uplift,
O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.
Jainism and Buddhism.
Udana 68-69:
Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant
________________________________________________________
Stephen Jay Gould, you have added to the knowledge of the human race and we thank you. May God bless you and greet you with open arms.
I attacked the writer of the article for lying, you attack me for telling the truth. The writer called Gould a biologist. He was a paleontologist, as I said.The writer knew he was no biologist, that he never had been. The writer knew he worked as a geologist for the university. He knew he got his doctorate by studying fossils "For his doctoral dissertation, Gould investigated fossil land snails of Bermuda. " It tells a lot about you and your theory that you attack those who tell the truth and expose lies.
Please address my points logically. I have previously stated that a moral code in a group of humans allows that group to succeed in competition with a morally bereft group. Is this not true?
Next, please address how morality is not pragmatic.
Third, please address what you think pragmaticism actually is, if it isn't being practical.
1. homology - even though professed by Darwin and given as one of the strongest proofs of evolution by him, it is no longer essential because it was easily disproven. There are far too many easily seen examples of similar traits in totally unrelated species. So, to fit the facts more accurately (and make sure that evolution cannot be refuted scientifically) now either divergence or convergence is proof of evolution.
2. fitness - since the biological creation of new genes cannot be shown by mere fitness (fitness does not operate until a gene has been perfected), evolutionists threw away fitness and postulated neutral drift. However, since fitness is still required for some of their arguments (such as why do species evolve in the first place) they have kept both arguments in their arsenal of excuses. Either fitness or unfitness is now proof of evolution.
3. gradual evolution - since the fossil record does not show gradual gradations between classes, then gradual evolution cannot be true either, hence punk-eek or the intermediate species were on vacation in Hawaii and left no fossil record of the change was developed. While this 'magical' excuse for the lack of evidence in the fossil record requires no other explanation, the evolutionists still hold to both theories and only use punctuated equilibrium when lack of gradualism is used against them.
As the above shows these 'evolutionary' modifications make the theory of evolution much more 'robust'. It allows evolutionists to take both sides of every question and say that everything that occurs is due to evolution. Of course, since it also makes evolution completely illogical and completely non-falsifiable, it also turns it into an ideology instead of a scientific theory.
BTW why do you think certain behaviour is bad? Is it because your god says so or does he say it is bad because it is detrimental regardless of his opinion?
If it's the former case your god could have chosen the opposite and it would be an arbitrary decision. He could have decided that stealing is not wrong for instance.
On the other hand if he simply recognizes that certain things are wrong regardless of his opinion we can also arrive at the same conclusions without him. In this case he isn't really needed but he serves only as a Santa Claus for adults.
Evolutionist writers are such liars they can never tell the truth. ---G3k's original statement.
It is self-evident that all evolutionist writers are not liars. So, this is a personal attack.
What knowledge did he add? The lie of punk-eek - a totally unverifiable and unverified theory? And why should the Lord which he attacked, demeaned and worked so hard to dissuade others to ignore receive him with open arms? He will be lucky if he spends a long time in purgatory.
Mat 12:22 Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.
Mat 12:23 And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?
Mat 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.
Mat 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:
Mat 12:26 And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?
Mat 12:27 And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast [them] out? therefore they shall be your judges.
Mat 12:28 But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.
Mat 12:29 Or else how can one enter into a strong man's house, and spoil his goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house.
Mat 12:30 He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.