There's the Theory of Evolution and the Interpretation of Evolution

a reply to: chr0naut

So are you implying that there was gradual genetic change occurring at the same time there was morphological stasis?

Not implying, no. I am asserting that there are genetic changes between every generation.

Sometimes that genetic change is very rapid, sometimes it is very slow. Stasis, in this context does not mean 'no change, dead stop', it means very slow.

According to Gould, "stasis may emerge as the theory's most important contribution to evolutionary science."[43] Philosopher Kim Sterelny in clarifying the meaning of stasis adds, "In claiming that species typically undergo no further evolutionary change once speciation is complete, they are not claiming that there is no change at all between one generation and the next. Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean. Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch describes this very process.

Multiple meanings of gradualism

Punctuated equilibrium is often portrayed to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism.[62] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sedimentary layers, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication(s), primarily because they did not think at geological scales".[15]

Richard Dawkins dedicated a chapter in The Blind Watchmaker to correcting, in his view, the wide confusion regarding rates of change. His first point is to argue that phyletic gradualism — understood in the sense that evolution proceeds at a single uniform rate of speed, called "constant speedism" by Dawkins — is a "caricature of Darwinism" and "does not really exist". His second argument, which follows from the first, is that once the caricature of "constant speedism" is dismissed, we are left with one logical alternative, which Dawkins terms "variable speedism". Variable speedism may also be distinguished one of two ways: "discrete variable speedism" and "continuously variable speedism". Eldredge and Gould, proposing that evolution jumps between stability and relative rapidity, are described as "discrete variable speedists", and "in this respect they are genuinely radical." They assert that evolution generally proceeds in bursts, or not at all. "Continuously variable speedists", on the other hand, advance that "evolutionary rates fluctuate continuously from very fast to very slow and stop, with all intermediates. They see no particular reason to emphasize certain speeds more than others. In particular, stasis, to them, is just an extreme case of ultra-slow evolution. To a punctuationist, there is something very special about stasis."[66] Dawkins therefore commits himself here to an empirical claim about the geological record,[original research?] in contrast to his earlier claim that "The paleontological evidence can be argued about, and I am not qualified to judge it."[67] It is this particular commitment that Eldredge and Gould have aimed to overturn.

Therefore, there are different approaches to the way thinking about the process is approached, but in the end, the process is the same. Both models are correct, until one or the other is demonstrated more useful than the other. It makes no difference whether you consider that the Earth orbits the Sun, or the Sun orbits the spinning Earth. It is just a model that helps you understand why there is day and night. All calculations and observations arrive at the same result. It is only when you add another object to the discussion that is no longer the case.

Remember, the map is not the territory.

a reply to: chr0naut

After much searching, I am now fairly sure that Darwin never wrote "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." The quote is erroneous and only appears to exist online in posts and pages relating to Punctuated Equilibrium.

OK, there is a reason why I include 'source' info above my externally sourced info... so you can find the source text for that info. Had you followed that link you would have been presented with the Wikipedia article where I found that quote. Had you looked at that quote in the Wiki article, you would have noticed a footnote hyperlink that looked a lot like this" [85]. Clicking on that footnote would have taken you to the list of footnotes at the bottom of the article where the footnote text looks something like this :

85. ^ Darwin, Charles (1869). The Origin of Species. London: John Murray. 5th edition, p. 551. @

Here, I have substituted '@' for the Wikipedia hyperlink icon thingy. Had you clicked on that hyperlink thingy, you would have found your self reading Mr. Darwin's words from the 5th edition as transcribed by the 'official keeper' "Darwin Online" of the Darwin papers.

[page] 551

record, we have no just right to expect to find so many links. If two or three, or even more linking forms were discovered, they would simply be ranked as so many new species, more especially if found in different geological sub-stages, let their differences be ever so slight. Numerous existing doubtful forms could be named which are probably varieties; but who will pretend that in future ages so many fossil links will be discovered, that naturalists will be able to decide whether or not these doubtful forms ought to be called varieties? Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Many species when once formed never undergo any further change but become extinct without leaving modified descendants; and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they have retained the same form. It is the dominant and widely ranging species which vary most frequently and vary most, and varieties are often at first local—both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links in any one formation less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they have spread, and are discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. Most formations have been intermittent in their accumulation; and their duration has probably been shorter than the average duration of specific forms. Successive formations are in most cases separated from each other by blank intervals of time of great length; for fossiliferous formations thick enough to resist future degradation can as a

I encourage you to follow those links and continue with the Darwin's thoughts on the matter. If anything, Gould is correcting other peoples misunderstanding about what Darwin described as 'gradualism'. Darwin never thought 'gradualism' meant 'single speed, constant speed'. He was clear in this paragraph that he understood as likely that there were varying degrees of gradualism.

Gould and Darwin are NOT mutually exclusive: they are in mutual affirmation.

By the way: the [85] footnote hyperlink and the '@' hyperlink in my post above are active - you CAN click them to get to the referenced information. That is what they are there for.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

So are you implying that there was gradual genetic change occurring at the same time there was morphological stasis?

Not implying, no. I am asserting that there are genetic changes between every generation.

Sometimes that genetic change is very rapid, sometimes it is very slow. Stasis, in this context does not mean 'no change, dead stop', it means very slow.

OK, lets look at the implications of such 'slowed' gradualism.

Surely change arises from mutation which are largely random occurrences. To suggest that mutation suddenly slows to hundredths or thousandths of its normal rate (and for which we have numbers for dependent upon genome) makes no sense and so that can't be the cause of the slowdown.

Now those mutated changes also have to distribute out into the population, so perhaps the rate of breeding becomes hundreds or thousands of times longer. Nah, that can't be it because the species would die of old age before it reproduced.

So perhaps there are some inverse selection pressures that prevent the mutation from spreading. But wait, there can't be a simultaneous selection advantage and its entirely antithetic disadvantage happening in the same mutated organisms at the same time. That just defies reasoning. So that's not it.

Perhaps genetic drift suddenly slows down? Nope, fails to explain things too.

You can't mix concepts of gradualism into punctuated equilibrium when you actually explain how such a slow down might functionally occur.

Even Gould's 'wobble about the phenotypic mean' equates with no significant overall genetic change contributory to evolution. It is double-think nonsense saying that the changes explained by mechanisms of conventional evolution, amount to no appreciable overall 'evolutionary' change, and then implying evolutionary change from it.

Gradualism implies cumulative small changes that build upon each other. The PE requirement that "change between generations does not accumulate" is directly counter to gradualism's requirement that they do accumulate.

You have to see that functionally you cannot have both cases operating, that gradualism that represents no overall change over a long period of time, is not actual change and becomes entirely non-contributory to any evolutionary process.

According to Gould, "stasis may emerge as the theory's most important contribution to evolutionary science."[43] Philosopher Kim Sterelny in clarifying the meaning of stasis adds, "In claiming that species typically undergo no further evolutionary change once speciation is complete, they are not claiming that there is no change at all between one generation and the next. Lineages do change. But the change between generations does not accumulate. Instead, over time, the species wobbles about its phenotypic mean. Jonathan Weiner's The Beak of the Finch describes this very process.

Multiple meanings of gradualismPunctuated equilibrium is often portrayed to oppose the concept of gradualism, when it is actually a form of gradualism.[62] This is because even though evolutionary change appears instantaneous between geological sedimentary layers, change is still occurring incrementally, with no great change from one generation to the next. To this end, Gould later commented that "Most of our paleontological colleagues missed this insight because they had not studied evolutionary theory and either did not know about allopatric speciation or had not considered its translation to geological time. Our evolutionary colleagues also failed to grasp the implication(s), primarily because they did not think at geological scales".[15]

Richard Dawkins dedicated a chapter in The Blind Watchmaker to correcting, in his view, the wide confusion regarding rates of change. His first point is to argue that phyletic gradualism — understood in the sense that evolution proceeds at a single uniform rate of speed, called "constant speedism" by Dawkins — is a "caricature of Darwinism" and "does not really exist". His second argument, which follows from the first, is that once the caricature of "constant speedism" is dismissed, we are left with one logical alternative, which Dawkins terms "variable speedism". Variable speedism may also be distinguished one of two ways: "discrete variable speedism" and "continuously variable speedism". Eldredge and Gould, proposing that evolution jumps between stability and relative rapidity, are described as "discrete variable speedists", and "in this respect they are genuinely radical." They assert that evolution generally proceeds in bursts, or not at all. "Continuously variable speedists", on the other hand, advance that "evolutionary rates fluctuate continuously from very fast to very slow and stop, with all intermediates. They see no particular reason to emphasize certain speeds more than others. In particular, stasis, to them, is just an extreme case of ultra-slow evolution. To a punctuationist, there is something very special about stasis."[66] Dawkins therefore commits himself here to an empirical claim about the geological record,[original research?] in contrast to his earlier claim that "The paleontological evidence can be argued about, and I am not qualified to judge it."[67] It is this particular commitment that Eldredge and Gould have aimed to overturn.

Therefore, there are different approaches to the way thinking about the process is approached, but in the end, the process is the same. Both models are correct, until one or the other is demonstrated more useful than the other. It makes no difference whether you consider that the Earth orbits the Sun, or the Sun orbits the spinning Earth. It is just a model that helps you understand why there is day and night. All calculations and observations arrive at the same result. It is only when you add another object to the discussion that is no longer the case.

Remember, the map is not the territory.

Wow, deep.



I have one too, 'Punctuated equilibrium's "stasis" is incompatible with evolutionarily functional gradualism'.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

After much searching, I am now fairly sure that Darwin never wrote "the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form." The quote is erroneous and only appears to exist online in posts and pages relating to Punctuated Equilibrium.

OK, there is a reason why I include 'source' info above my externally sourced info... so you can find the source text for that info. Had you followed that link you would have been presented with the Wikipedia article where I found that quote. Had you looked at that quote in the Wiki article, you would have noticed a footnote hyperlink that looked a lot like this" [85]. Clicking on that footnote would have taken you to the list of footnotes at the bottom of the article where the footnote text looks something like this :

85. ^ Darwin, Charles (1869). The Origin of Species. London: John Murray. 5th edition, p. 551. @

Here, I have substituted '@' for the Wikipedia hyperlink icon thingy. Had you clicked on that hyperlink thingy, you would have found your self reading Mr. Darwin's words from the 5th edition as transcribed by the 'official keeper' "Darwin Online" of the Darwin papers.

[page] 551

record, we have no just right to expect to find so many links. If two or three, or even more linking forms were discovered, they would simply be ranked as so many new species, more especially if found in different geological sub-stages, let their differences be ever so slight. Numerous existing doubtful forms could be named which are probably varieties; but who will pretend that in future ages so many fossil links will be discovered, that naturalists will be able to decide whether or not these doubtful forms ought to be called varieties? Only a small portion of the world has been geologically explored. Only organic beings of certain classes can be preserved in a fossil condition, at least in any great number. Many species when once formed never undergo any further change but become extinct without leaving modified descendants; and the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they have retained the same form. It is the dominant and widely ranging species which vary most frequently and vary most, and varieties are often at first local—both causes rendering the discovery of intermediate links in any one formation less likely. Local varieties will not spread into other and distant regions until they are considerably modified and improved; and when they have spread, and are discovered in a geological formation, they will appear as if suddenly created there, and will be simply classed as new species. Most formations have been intermittent in their accumulation; and their duration has probably been shorter than the average duration of specific forms. Successive formations are in most cases separated from each other by blank intervals of time of great length; for fossiliferous formations thick enough to resist future degradation can as a

I encourage you to follow those links and continue with the Darwin's thoughts on the matter. If anything, Gould is correcting other peoples misunderstanding about what Darwin described as 'gradualism'. Darwin never thought 'gradualism' meant 'single speed, constant speed'. He was clear in this paragraph that he understood as likely that there were varying degrees of gradualism.

Gould and Darwin are NOT mutually exclusive: they are in mutual affirmation.

By the way: the [85] footnote hyperlink and the '@' hyperlink in my post above are active - you CAN click them to get to the referenced information. That is what they are there for.

While I appreciate that there were reference links posted that led to page 551 of Darwin's "On the Origins of the Species", the text quoted in Wikipedia with the reference to that link, is different than what Darwin wrote.

While the intended meaning of the quotes was very similar, the difference of a comma, a deleted word, a substituted word and a modified word caused my search to come up empty. I now see that the quote was close to Darwin's footnotes of his On the Origins of the Species.

For comparison, the Wikipedia quote:

"the periods during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured in years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they retain the same form."

The original text of Darwin:

"the periods, during which species have undergone modification, though long as measured by years, have probably been short in comparison with the periods during which they have retained the same form."

I have highlighted the differences between the quotes, in the second quote, in bold typeface.

I do retract my previous doubts about the provenance of the quote.

Thanks rnaa for going the extra mile with your source details.

But also, in context, Darwin was, here, clearly talking about fossils and geological periods, which draws some question of if he was intending the same as the inference of using the quote to support punctuated equilibrium?

a reply to: chr0naut

I have highlighted the differences between the quotes, in the second quote, in bold typeface.

I think the Wiki article said the quote was from the 4th edition, but the hyperlinks went to the 5th edition. That could be the source of the differences in the quote.

Both editions were published under Darwin's control during his lifetime. They are his words.

a reply to: rnaa

originally posted by: rnaa
Try this

Yeah.

originally posted by: rnaa

(source)

In the early 19th century Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744 – 1829) proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed theory of evolution.

Very funny. Yes I know this, but if I had told you there was no way in hell you would've accepted that Lamarck came up with the first theory of evolution. So I went with one that everyone knows and accepts- Darwin - expecting you were reasonable enough to at least recognize that. I was wrong it seems. You've convinced yourself that the first theory of evolution was the MES. Nothing I can do about that. It's your world, mate, we're all just living in it.

[Color commentary mine.]

In 1858 Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace published a new evolutionary theory, explained in detail in Darwin's On the Origin of Species (1859). Unlike Lamarck, Darwin proposed common descent and a branching tree of life, meaning that two very different species could share a common ancestor. Darwin based his theory on the idea of natural selection: it synthesized a broad range of evidence from animal husbandry, biogeography, geology, morphology, and embryology. Debate over Darwin's work led to the rapid acceptance of the general concept of evolution, but the specific mechanism he proposed, natural selection, was not widely accepted (SO, WHAT? The mechanism only helps (or not) to bolster the theory) until it was revived by developments in biology that occurred during the 1920s through the 1940s. Before that time most biologists regarded other factors as responsible for evolution. Alternatives to natural selection suggested during "the eclipse of Darwinism" (c. 1880 to 1920) included inheritance of acquired characteristics (neo-Lamarckism), an innate drive for change (orthogenesis), and sudden large mutations (saltationism). Mendelian genetics, a series of 19th-century experiments with pea plant variations rediscovered in 1900, was integrated with natural selection by Ronald Fisher, J. B. S. Haldane, and Sewall Wright during the 1910s to 1930s, and resulted in the founding of the new discipline of population genetics. During the 1930s and 1940s population genetics became integrated with other biological fields, resulting in a widely applicable theory of evolution that encompassed much of biology—the modern synthesis.(SO, WHAT? "Widely applicable" (at that time), as in it widened the scope of the theory; NOT as in it was the first ever theory of evolution)

a reply to: rnaa

Unfortunately your post is fundamentally flawed and rife with misconceptions, I seriously debated whether or not you were being serious.

originally posted by: rnaa
Are you honestly trying to promote the idea that the concept of Common Descent was 'dreamt up' (with no evidence what-so-ever, mind you) and THEN the concept of evolution was dreamt up to support that idea?

First of all, NO, I'm not at all proposing any of this was 'dreamt up". I don't know where you arrived at that idea.

Secondly, YES, Common Descent was realized first before any formal theory of evolution was put forth. In other words, the theory of evolution eventually became known as Descent with Modification, based off of Common Descent, as it's still referred to today.

You say there wasn't any evidence "what-so-ever" for Common Descent. This is such an unbelievable statement that I had to read it a few times to make sure I understood if you were being serious. Sadly it seems you are because you repeated it again in your post.

Aside from being able to observe (empirically) the similarities and variances between common ancestral species, as well as species' adaptiveness to their environments, naturalists of that time also had at their disposal, though not as developed as today mind you: paleontology, biogeography, zoology, botany, anatomy, taxonomy, morphology, and embryology to further confirm common ancestry and thus common descent amongst species. The realization of CD was the very first piece of the evolutionary puzzle that made them realize "gee, these things must really be evolving". The next question was "HOW"? Enter Lamarck and Darwin et al. The rest, as they say, is history.

Now, if you're seriously going to promote the fallacy of your story, that "evolution" was realized first, you should define what you mean by evolution as it was understood back then, because there were a few different ideas on this. For instance Lamarck, credited with very first theory of evolution as you so astutely cited, actually rejected CD. He thought all species had descended separately. How could he reject CD if it hadn't been conceived of in the first place?

originally posted by: rnaa
Common descent is a necessary implication of evolution.

No. It's the other way around.

Evidence of common descent of living organisms has been discovered by scientists researching in a variety of disciplines over many decades, demonstrating that all life on Earth comes from a single ancestor. This forms an important part of the evidence on which evolutionary theory rests, demonstrates that evolution does occur, and illustrates the processes that created Earth's biodiversity. It supports the modern evolutionary synthesis—the current scientific theory that explains how and why life changes over time. Evolutionary biologists document evidence of common descent, all the way back to the last universal common ancestor, by developing testable predictions, testing hypotheses, and constructing theories that illustrate and describe its causes.

(source)

originally posted by: rnaa
Scientists and other thinkers reflecting on the patterns of similarity among the huge biodiversity came to realize that the obvious answer was evolution from one form to several, and if that answer was correct it meant that if you wind back the clock, then there must have been OCA.

How does anyone go from "one to several" without first realizing common ancestry? And again, if the so-called "obvious answer" was evolution - what version of evolution are you meaning? There were different ideas on that.

Is it so hard to imagine that people back then may have actually pondered the origins of life before they even realized that life evolved?

originally posted by: rnaa
I think you are saying that when people looked at the similarities in biodiversity, they said 'gee, they must have descended from a common ancestor; then evolution was identified to explain all that. The problem with that approach is that Common Descent IS evolution.

YES>

What's the problem with CD being evolution? I don't see it as a problem. The problem I see is with you saying it, as it's contradictory to your initial claims that Common Descent is an implication of Evolution, or an extrapolation from it. In other words that evolution, which you have yet to define, came first and then gave way to the idea of OCA. You have no recourse for this claim.

originally posted by: rnaa
But there is no obvious reason for folks to say fishes and elephants had a common ancestor unless they understood evolution, there was no evidence for that idea, no justification for it. All people had was the outer branches of the 'tree of life' (or bush if you prefer).

WRONG. They had fossils! They had taxonomy! They had anatomy! And they didn't have to suppose that fishes and elephants had a common ancestor for common descent to be realized. They only had to see it between chimps and humans, which they did, or other more closely but still distantly related species.

originally posted by: rnaa
So I am saying that when people looked at the similarities in biodiversity, they said 'gee, there is evolution going on here, and that implies common descent, and that implies that eventually there must have been a common ancestor.

Well, it's the wrong way of looking at it.

For clarification here's what you said:

originally posted by: rnaa

The idea of one common ancestor is an "extrapolation" from applying the theory to observed evidence.

It could also be termed a "prediction" that according to hypothesis one common ancestor could in principle be identified.

The MES is NOT constructed on the basis of the one common ancestor hypothesis, it is exactly the opposite.

You are putting the cart before the horse.

Right off the bat you were wrong since Common Descent was developed and formalized way before the MES was even a consideration. Darwin made it the hallmark of his theory of evolution alongside NS. Genetics eventually confirmed it. It's what made the MES possible.

originally posted by: chr0naut
How could I go back and change my posts after the 'edit time' has expired?

Stop playing dumb. You aren't editing posts, you are making excuses that try to weasel out of what you said in its original context.

I have provided links and proof of what I did actually write here in this post..

My quote was talking about the claim of god causing rainstorms, and you link a post about the peppered moths and omega idea. What gives, dude? I said your claim of god causing rainstorms was fallacious. I didn't say the omega idea was fallacious, I said that it was not testable and just a guess. It's also funny how you conveniently ignored all of the relevant points about advantageous mutations. If I say something wrong I admit it, I don't just pretend it was never said.

Your repeated libelous claims are an ad-hominem, an attack on my personal integrity rather than addressing the topics (because you have repeated the false accusation across a number of threads).

100% false. I didn't use any libel or ad hominem. I pointed out fallacies in your reasoning and called out the dishonest way in which you use semantics and misrepresent my points.

Your continued suggestion that my beliefs are absurd (without any specific explanation of what you find absurd, even when asked politely), is an ad-hominem, an attack on my personal integrity rather than addressing the topic.

Once again, you COMPLETELY misrepresent what I said. I didn't say your BELIEFS were absurd. I clearly explained that postulating an untestable, unfalsifiable IDEA and comparing it to a scientific hypothesis or theory is what is absurd. I have explained this 3 times nows. Claiming ad hominem is a lie. I never said you are wrong because you are stupid or anything close to that. I give reasons. You don't understand what ad hominem is if you think I used it.

I will repost links to the proof of your outright defamatory lies every time you attempt to respond.

Sorry, but nothing I said in that post is defamatory or a lie and I already responded to that post and addressed it. You reported me to the mods over THAT? You are the one that continuously misrepresents what I'm saying. I'm not personally attacking you. I'm calling out your faulty claims. I have not use ad hominem at all, and I'm attacking your claims, not you personally. I don't like being misrepresented and when people employ such tactics I will say you are being deceptive. That's not ad hom and not a personal attack. It is defending my points against being taken out of context.

Somebody please tell me that I'm not hallucinating here.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: crayzeed
a reply to: chr0naut
Very simplistic, but wrong. Evolution is if everybody beat their heads against the wall the thin boned would die and the thick bones would live.

No, only a few people will believe that there is advantage in banging your head against a wall. Probably only those who believe that only evolution exclusively explains biodiversity.

The act of banging your head (in this hypothetical thought experiment) is NOT an advantage. Nobody said it was.

However, if for some reason environmental change caused everyone to begin banging their heads, a person who by chance happened to have thicker skull bones would have some protection from harm caused by the head banging. THAT would be the advantage -- i.e., having a thicker skull.

People with that advantage (protection from the harms of head banging) would then be more likely to procreate, passing down the thick-head trait. Eventually, the ratio of people with thicker skulls vs. thinner skulls would skew far towards thicker skulls.

But "thick heads being an advantage" exists only because of the head banging. If there were no head banging, then the thick heads would not be an advantage. All other things being equal, people who by chance had thinner skuls would be just as likely to procreate than people who happened to have thicker skulls. So as time went on, the ratio of people with thinner skulls vs. thicker skulls would remain unchanged.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

Very funny. Yes I know this, but if I had told you there was no way in hell you would've accepted that Lamarck came up with the first theory of evolution. So I went with one that everyone knows and accepts- Darwin - expecting you were reasonable enough to at least recognize that. I was wrong it seems. You've convinced yourself that the first theory of evolution was the MES. Nothing I can do about that. It's your world, mate, we're all just living in it.

That is absolutely 100% the opposite case - and you know it. Lamark and Darwin were HYPOTHESES in the modern sense.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

You say there wasn't any evidence "what-so-ever" for Common Descent. This is such an unbelievable statement that I had to read it a few times to make sure I understood if you were being serious. Sadly it seems you are because you repeated it again in your post.

I don't have time to go back and verify my words right now, but if I said 'Common Descent' in that context I mispoke. As I sit here now, I don't believe I said that, but I'll check later.

I believe I said "One Common Ancestor" and/or "LUCA" and that is what I meant about there being no obvious evidence for that. It is OCA/LUCA that is implied by Common Descent.

Certainly Darwin spent his entire life documenting Common Descent and delaying publication and left out a discussion of Homo Sapiens due to the implications of "Common Descent": OCA/LUCA.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: PhotonEffect


Certainly Darwin spent his entire life documenting Common Descent and delaying publication and left out a discussion of Homo Sapiens due to the implications of "Common Descent": OCA/LUCA.

How do you arrive at the conclusion that Darwin left the evolution of HSS on the cutting room floor when he published
"The Descent of Man in Relation to Sex" in 1871? That book focuses entirely on human evolution. On the Origin of Species was based on his observations and research while aboard the Beagle whereas The Descent of Man is based on later research that became all too obvious once Neanderthal remains started popping up. It's not as if hbe was hiding data or afreaid to publish it. He wanted thorough documentation and went to great lengths to exhaust all avenues of due diligence. It's good science, nothing more.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut
How could I go back and change my posts after the 'edit time' has expired?

Stop playing dumb.

Now you are saying I am "playing dumb".

How does that address the topic of the OP, or it is yet another example of argument against my person?

Think, choose your words carefully, stay on topic and don't be abusive, even by inference.

You aren't editing posts, you are making excuses that try to weasel out of what you said in its original context.

The posts are what was said in its original context! You continue to argue against things that I did not write and that are off topic to the thread.

I have provided links and proof of what I did actually write here in this post..

My quote was talking about the claim of god causing rainstorms

Is that on topic to the OP thread or are you just trolling the thread (and most of the Origins and Creationism forum where you lurk)?

, and you link a post about the peppered moths and omega idea. What gives, dude?

They are examples of you trolling and becoming abusive, even when I tried for reasonable resolution.

I said your claim of god causing rainstorms was fallacious.

You don't have the knowledge to state that. This is just another example of what you do.

I didn't say the omega idea was fallacious, I said that it was not testable and just a guess.

And I agreed with you. Your argument there is 'tilting at windmills' - flailing vainly against nothing.

It's also funny how you conveniently ignored all of the relevant points about advantageous mutations.

No, actually I didn't and there is no way you could even know if I had. This is another of your statements based purely upon your opinion and based in ignorance.

If I say something wrong I admit it, I don't just pretend it was never said.

You have. Look at your comment below for an example.

Your repeated libelous claims are an ad-hominem, an attack on my personal integrity rather than addressing the topics (because you have repeated the false accusation across a number of threads).

100% false. I didn't use any libel or ad hominem.

You said I was "playing dumb" in the first paragraph of your last post.

Your writing that had nothing to do with the OP's topic and was intended to ridicule my line of reasoning, nor was it true.

It was libelous (a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation) and ad hominem (an argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining).

I pointed out fallacies in your reasoning and called out the dishonest way in which you use semantics and misrepresent my points.

Suggesting that I was "playing dumb" does not address my line of reasoning at all and is typical of your responses.

Instead, you made an unsupported value judgement about me that was was off topic, ad hominem and libelous and is typical of what you have done many times over.

Your continued suggestion that my beliefs are absurd (without any specific explanation of what you find absurd, even when asked politely), is an ad hominem, an attack on my personal integrity rather than addressing the topic.

Once again, you COMPLETELY misrepresent what I said. I didn't say your BELIEFS were absurd.

What about here in this post, or here in this post, or here in this post, or, the clincher is, what you wrote just below this (my emphasis added).

The truth is, that you have openly ridiculed and called fallacious, beliefs that I and other contributors to the forum have expressed.

I clearly explained that postulating an untestable, unfalsifiable IDEA and comparing it to a scientific hypothesis or theory is what is absurd.

I have explained this 3 times nows. Claiming ad hominem is a lie. I never said you are wrong because you are stupid or anything close to that.

I give reasons. You don't understand what ad hominem is if you think I used it.

I will repost links to the proof of your outright defamatory lies every time you attempt to respond.

Sorry, but nothing I said in that post is defamatory or a lie and I already responded to that post and addressed it. You reported me to the mods over THAT? You are the one that continuously misrepresents what I'm saying. I'm not personally attacking you. I'm calling out your faulty claims.

When did you establish beyond doubt that my claims were faulty?

I have not use ad hominem at all, and I'm attacking your claims, not you personally. I don't like being misrepresented and when people employ such tactics I will say you are being deceptive. That's not ad hom and not a personal attack. It is defending my points against being taken out of context.

Somebody please tell me that I'm not hallucinating here.

We can't really know your mental and physiological state and so it would be highly presumptuous for someone else to advise you.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: chr0naut

I have highlighted the differences between the quotes, in the second quote, in bold typeface.

I think the Wiki article said the quote was from the 4th edition, but the hyperlinks went to the 5th edition. That could be the source of the differences in the quote.

Both editions were published under Darwin's control during his lifetime. They are his words.

I agree. They are Darwin's words and I can see how I made the erroneous assumption that it was a mis-attributed quote.

Cheers

originally posted by: chr0naut
Now you are saying I am "playing dumb".

How does that address the topic of the OP, or it is yet another example of argument against my person?

Think, choose your words carefully, stay on topic and don't be abusive, even by inference.

Playing dumb is a common expression that means you are pretending to not know what I'm saying and was in response to you saying "How could I go back and change my posts after the 'edit time' has expired?" when you knew full well that I was referring to how you misrepresented it after the fact and claimed it meant something different as I have explained to you multiple times. The history of the posts are all there in context and anybody is welcome to review them. I don't feel that I was out of line at all.

I'm sorry, but I call a cat a cat and a dog a dog. If you misrepresent my point, I'm going to say something. If you use semantic arguments I'm going to say something. Insinuating that calling out fallacies is abusive is silly (I almost said absurd but didn't want to trigger you again. See? I can be nice).

The posts are what was said in its original context! You continue to argue against things that I did not write and that are off topic to the thread.

You accused me of libel and linked that post to "support" your case when it did no such thing.

Is that on topic to the OP thread or are you just trolling the thread (and most of the Origins and Creationism forum where you lurk)?

I'm responding to your baseless accusations and defending myself. If it's off topic, you are directly contributing to that. If you think it's off topic, don't respond, instead of arguing against me and then when I make a good point, you just dismiss it as "off topic." Why didn't you say that right away instead of vigorously defending your point dragging things even more off topic?

They are examples of you trolling and becoming abusive, even when I tried for reasonable resolution.

I was not abusive and was not trolling. In fact I clearly explained myself.

You don't have the knowledge to state that. This is just another example of what you do.

I don't need knowledge to call out a logical fallacy. Yes, confirmation bias is a fallacy and I already explained it in detail. Also this clearly demonstrates how you change the conversation and misrepresent what I say. Anybody can look back and see that the post you just quoted was cherry picked from a larger paragraph that was making a separate point. This is what you do and this is why I call that deceptive argument style out. You could have easily quoted the entire paragraph in context, but instead you broke it up into individual sentences and in some cases half sentences as if each one was it's own overarching point irrelevant to what I was responding to.

And I agreed with you. Your argument there is 'tilting at windmills' - flailing vainly against nothing.

No you didn't, you went on ranting and raving about what I think is absurd about it when I already told you multiple times. You brought it up incessantly, long after we were done talking about it. I even suggested creating your own thread about it to prevent more thread drift.

Wait, "tilting at windmills"? You need to knock off the defamatory libel and ad hom attacks. I can't believe you just said that!

No, actually I didn't and there is no way you could even know if I had. This is another of your statements based purely upon your opinion and based in ignorance.

Nope, it's based on your posting style. You didn't respond to it or offer any kind of counterpoint, yet you waste time nitpicking irrelevant silly half quotes to twist everything I say and blow it out of proportion. Trust me, if you had a response you would have posted it. But alas it was swept under the rug.

You said I was "playing dumb" in the first paragraph of your last post.

Which is not ad hominem or libel. It's a common expression!

It was libelous (a published false statement that is damaging to a person's reputation; a written defamation) and ad hominem (an argument or reaction directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining).

Again, ad hominem is using a personal attack IN PLACE OF AN ARGUMENT. I did not do that. I focused on your position every time, I didn't just say that you are wrong and stupid and call it day. If I said you were being deceptive, I explained why. If I said that you lied, I explained why. If what I say is true, it's not libelous nor defamatory.

What about here in this post or here in this post

Both of those links point to the same post and this is what I said:

" I understand being skeptical about it (abiogenesis) and admitting that it is a hypothesis, but substantial work HAS been done, so to say there isn't any evidence for it is pretty absurd"

That statement had nothing to do with your beliefs and was in response you saying something to the effect of, abiogenesis is entirely unevidenced, which you later amended to not fully evidenced. This directly changed the meaning of what you said. I can understand if you simply made a mistake and worded it oddly, but going back to that and calling it libel is WAY off base, because it was in response your statement as it was worded. I did not say that your belief in god or other personal beliefs are absurd.

here in this post, or, the clincher is, what you wrote just below this (my emphasis added).

Okay, you pull up a post from 5 years ago about the hoax that the creationist museum is, where everything I said was on point. I guess you really had to dig hard to find examples of my "defamatory libel" and lies. The creationist museum IS demonstrably false and Ken Ham is a professional liar. That is not libel, that is fact. I even explained in that post that I wasn't referring to all religious people, just the ones that promote those lies, and yes they are lies.

Ah, reading that thread again brings back memories and makes me miss Astyanax. Good times!

When did you establish beyond doubt that my claims were faulty?

Many, many times. Using confirmation bias is faulty (logically flawed). Comparing a guess out of the blue to a hypothesis or scientific theory is faulty. Saying that people agreed that peppered moths were speciating was faulty. Changing the meaning of my points is faulty. Quoting me out of context is faulty.

As we can both see this conversation has become pointless because all the actual points have been slowly filtered out by you over time and now we are just nitpicking each other over technicalities. Maybe it's time to just call a truce.

I apologize to everyone at ATS for filling up this thread with verbal jousting, but to be fair,it is kind of a throw away thread as OP pretty much gave up. I will back off now, unless I need to further defend myself. I feel I've successfully done that and see no real reason to continue here.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: chr0naut

Playing dumb is a common expression that means you are pretending to not know what I'm saying and was in response to you saying "How could I go back and change my posts after the 'edit time' has expired?" when you knew full well that I was referring to how you misrepresented it after the fact and claimed it meant something different as I have explained to you multiple times.

I intended what I wrote. I did not misrepresent what I wrote "after the fact". I meant exactly what I wrote, not something else.

You call things that have not ever been resolved "fallacies" without any capability of knowing if they are false, or not.

You are very flexible with the truth and I don't grant you any credibility.

My "accusations" against you are based upon the linked posts.

As you suggest, I'll stop feeding the troll now.

a reply to: peter vlar

How do you arrive at the conclusion that Darwin left the evolution of HSS on the cutting room floor when he published

He didn't. He left it out of "Origen of Species".

a reply to: rnaa

originally posted by: rnaa
That is absolutely 100% the opposite case - and you know it. Lamark and Darwin were HYPOTHESES in the modern sense.

Absolutely 100%, no.

I'll grant it to you for Lamarck "in the modern sense" (whatever that means), since it's been shown some of his ideas are incorrect, but not for Darwin. Darwin spent 20 years after his trip to the Galapagos fleshing out his hypotheses while working on other projects, gathering evidence in support of his observations, before publishing it as a full fledge scientific theory in Origins. There is no debating that point. The theory of evolution as we all know it started with him.

originally posted by: rnaa

Certainly Darwin spent his entire life documenting Common Descent and delaying publication and left out a discussion of Homo Sapiens due to the implications of "Common Descent": OCA/LUCA.

The so called "Darwin's Delay" for reasons of being ostracized has been called a huge myth.

www.cam.ac.uk...

Somehow I missed replying back to you.

a reply to: Barcs

originally posted by: Barcs
It's really not,

I'm not saying common descent is a hypothesis. It's been well established by now. I'm saying that LUCA, based off the meaning of common descent, is.

originally posted by: Barcs
How could anybody possibly know that for sure? It was my understanding that scientists think they reproduced asexually and you are referring to a time when it was most likely proto-RNA based life, not DNA based life.

You're confusing life origins with LUCA. I'm talking about LUCA, which was likely DNA based.

The genomic history of prokaryotic organismal lineages is marked by extensive horizontal gene transfer (HGT) between groups of organisms at all taxonomic levels. These HGT events have played an essential role in the origin and distribution of biological innovations. Analyses of ancient gene families show that HGT existed in the distant past, even at the time of the organismal last universal common ancestor (LUCA). Most gene transfers originated in lineages that have since gone extinct. Therefore, one cannot assume that the last common ancestors of each gene were all present in the same cell representing the cellular ancestor of all extant life.

The universality of the genetic code in primordial lineages is likely both a product of and precondition for HGT occurring before, during, and after the time of LUCA. As such, some transfers from lineages diverging before LUCA would have been to the ancestors of extant lineages. Due to patterns of extinction and coalescence, these HGT events would manifest themselves as unusually deeply branching divisions within gene trees, leading to rare and unusual protein homologs with much narrower phylogenetic distributions than their sister clades. This scenario requires deeply branching lineages surviving well beyond the time of LUCA, so that transfer could occur to lineages derived from LUCA. Extinction of the donor lineage could then obscure the origin of these rare gene types

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: Barcs
Evolution will update its understanding and move on. That's what science does when conflicting information is found.

So simple yet so eloquent. Thanks Barcs, I feel much better now.