MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03 PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
>>>
>> A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
>> of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
>>>
>>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
>>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>>>
>> Methodological naturalism works.
>>>
>>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>>>
>> Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
>> the Emperor idea has no clothes.
>>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>>>
>> What is macroevolution?
>
> This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
>
> It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.
>
Thanks. It’s a wee bit paywalled so the “We review potential avenues for
future research to establish how mechanisms at one scale (drift, mutation,
migration, selection) translate to processes at the other scale
(speciation, extinction, biogeographic dispersal) and vice versa.” bit that
piqued my interest is inaccessible.

But still, what does macroevolution mean to you?

On 12/10/23 12:19 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-12-10 04:23:48 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
>
>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
>>>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>>>>>>>
>>>> [Lots]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ID scam 1
>>>>>>> ID perps 5
>>>>>>> Top Six 1
>>>>>>> IDiotic 1
>>>>>>> IDiots 2
>>>>>>> denial 2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own
>>>>>> output.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, probably monkey see monkey do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just 5 years to late to matter.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same
>>>> keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You may not know what is going on.  You should get someone to explain it
>>> to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out.
>>>
>>> ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best
>>> evidences for IDiocy.  It turned out that most of TO didn't understand
>>> what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
>>>
>>> What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
>>> accomplish anything.
>>>
>> If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All
>> concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in
>> probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the
>> will?
>
> I think he explained that with his comment "monkey see monkey do".
> Assuming that the monkey in question is himself, he notices that it's
> been several hours since he last told us about IDperps and the Top Six
> and thinks he needs to copy out the same old stuff yet again in case
> we've forgotten.
>>
>> And if it’s too late to accomplish anything why pile it on more? You
>> can’t
>> make anything more dead unless we are fighting zombies. Did you suddenly
>> wake up in hospital in the middle of a desolate city?
>
> Never having used chatbot or seen it used I have no idea what John
> Harshman's comment meant.
>
>
Chatbots have to be "educated" on a body of text, which teaches them
what words follow or are associated with what other words. A chatbot
exposed to its own output tends to fall into a rut.

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 01:45:18 -0800 (PST), MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03?PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
>> >
>> A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
>> of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
>> >
>> > "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
>> > philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
>> > worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
>> > principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>> >
>> Methodological naturalism works.
>> >
>> > Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>> >
>> Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
>> the Emperor idea has no clothes.
>> > My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
>> > major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>> >
>> What is macroevolution?
>
>This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
>
>It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.

In any case, microevolution is a necessary condition for
macroevolution.

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

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 01:45:18 -0800 (PST), MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03?PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
>>>>
>>> A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
>>> of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
>>>>
>>>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
>>>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
>>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
>>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>>>>
>>> Methodological naturalism works.
>>>>
>>>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>>>>
>>> Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
>>> the Emperor idea has no clothes.
>>>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
>>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>>>>
>>> What is macroevolution?
>>
>> This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
>>
>> It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.
>
>
> In any case, microevolution is a necessary condition for
> macroevolution.
>
But is it sufficient?

On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 8:52:04 AM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 01:45:18 -0800 (PST), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03?PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >>> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
> >>>>
> >>> A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
> >>> of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
> >>>>
> >>>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
> >>>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
> >>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
> >>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
> >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
> >>>>
> >>> Methodological naturalism works.
> >>>>
> >>>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
> >>>>
> >>> Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
> >>> the Emperor idea has no clothes.
> >>>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
> >>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
> >>>>
> >>> What is macroevolution?
> >>
> >> This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
> >>
> >> It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.
> >
> >
> > In any case, microevolution is a necessary condition for
> > macroevolution.
> >
> But is it sufficient?
Depends on what is meant by "macroevolution". Some seem to treat macroevolution
as something that requires additional powers from somewhere.

On 12/9/2023 10:23 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
>>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>> On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>>>>>>
>>> [Lots]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ID scam 1
>>>>>> ID perps 5
>>>>>> Top Six 1
>>>>>> IDiotic 1
>>>>>> IDiots 2
>>>>>> denial 2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No, probably monkey see monkey do.
>>>>
>>>> Just 5 years to late to matter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same
>>> keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
>>>
>>
>> You may not know what is going on. You should get someone to explain it
>> to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out.
>>
>> ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best
>> evidences for IDiocy. It turned out that most of TO didn't understand
>> what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
>>
>> What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
>> accomplish anything.
>>
> If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All
> concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in
> probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the will?

Just ask Mark Isaac when ID died on TO. The current whining about
reality is due to the inability to accept responsibility for their own
incompetence. The whiners at first claimed that I had harassed the
IDiots into quiting, but they soon realized that, that was not true, and
this is the result. Why support such an effort if you do not understand
why it is going on?

The ID scam continues to be a topic of discussion on TO, and until that
ends there will be no reason to quit doing what I have always done.

Ron Okimoto
>
>
> And if it’s too late to accomplish anything why pile it on more? You can’t
> make anything more dead unless we are fighting zombies. Did you suddenly
> wake up in hospital in the middle of a desolate city?
>

On 12/10/2023 2:19 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-12-10 04:23:48 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
>
>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
>>>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>>>>>>>
>>>> [Lots]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ID scam 1
>>>>>>> ID perps 5
>>>>>>> Top Six 1
>>>>>>> IDiotic 1
>>>>>>> IDiots 2
>>>>>>> denial 2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own
>>>>>> output.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, probably monkey see monkey do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just 5 years to late to matter.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same
>>>> keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You may not know what is going on.  You should get someone to explain it
>>> to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out.
>>>
>>> ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best
>>> evidences for IDiocy.  It turned out that most of TO didn't understand
>>> what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
>>>
>>> What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
>>> accomplish anything.
>>>
>> If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All
>> concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in
>> probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the
>> will?
>
> I think he explained that with his comment "monkey see monkey do".
> Assuming that the monkey in question is himself, he notices that it's
> been several hours since he last told us about IDperps and the Top Six
> and thinks he needs to copy out the same old stuff yet again in case
> we've forgotten.
>>
>> And if it’s too late to accomplish anything why pile it on more? You
>> can’t
>> make anything more dead unless we are fighting zombies. Did you suddenly
>> wake up in hospital in the middle of a desolate city?
>
> Never having used chatbot or seen it used I have no idea what John
> Harshman's comment meant.
>
>

My guess is that you don't even know what is going on. You should get
Mark Isaac to fess up about why this became an issue. It is sad and
stupid, but why support something sad and stupid? This is the worst of
TO, if you think otherwise you may want to try to figure out what is
going on. Get Mark to tell you why he started this. It should be
embarrassing, but the longer you go on in ignorance the more
embarrassing it will be.

Ron Okimoto

On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 16:48:23 +0000, *Hemidactylus*
<ecphoric@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 01:45:18 -0800 (PST), MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03?PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
>>>>>
>>>> A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
>>>> of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
>>>>>
>>>>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
>>>>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
>>>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
>>>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>>>>>
>>>> Methodological naturalism works.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>>>>>
>>>> Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
>>>> the Emperor idea has no clothes.
>>>>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
>>>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>>>>>
>>>> What is macroevolution?
>>>
>>> This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
>>>
>>> It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.
>>
>>
>> In any case, microevolution is a necessary condition for
>> macroevolution.
>>
>But is it sufficient?

Since you asked, yes. My understanding is drift, mutation, migration,
and selection necessarily lead to speciation, extinction, and
biogeographic dispersal. I acknowledge there might be additional
features to macroevolution, but they aren't necessary to it.

And since the following point was raised in another contemporaneous
topic, my understanding is biochemical life necessarily follows
microevolution/macroevolution pathways, regardless of the "ecology".
So even though we have no knowledge of life anywhere but on Earth,
it's a reasonable assumption that extraterrestrial life will similarly
evolve to create multiple species, and those individuals and species
will necessarily compete for necessarily limited resources. Those with
a greater drive to compete will selectively reproduce more offspring
with a greater drive to compete, perhaps to evolve a toolmaking
intelligence to migrate to other stars.

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

RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
> On 12/10/2023 2:19 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2023-12-10 04:23:48 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
>>
>>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
>>>>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> [Lots]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ID scam 1
>>>>>>>> ID perps 5
>>>>>>>> Top Six 1
>>>>>>>> IDiotic 1
>>>>>>>> IDiots 2
>>>>>>>> denial 2
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own
>>>>>>> output.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, probably monkey see monkey do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just 5 years to late to matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same
>>>>> keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You may not know what is going on.  You should get someone to explain it
>>>> to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out.
>>>>
>>>> ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best
>>>> evidences for IDiocy.  It turned out that most of TO didn't understand
>>>> what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
>>>>
>>>> What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
>>>> accomplish anything.
>>>>
>>> If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All
>>> concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in
>>> probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the
>>> will?
>>
>> I think he explained that with his comment "monkey see monkey do".
>> Assuming that the monkey in question is himself, he notices that it's
>> been several hours since he last told us about IDperps and the Top Six
>> and thinks he needs to copy out the same old stuff yet again in case
>> we've forgotten.
>>>
>>> And if it’s too late to accomplish anything why pile it on more? You
>>> can’t
>>> make anything more dead unless we are fighting zombies. Did you suddenly
>>> wake up in hospital in the middle of a desolate city?
>>
>> Never having used chatbot or seen it used I have no idea what John
>> Harshman's comment meant.
>>
>>
>
> My guess is that you don't even know what is going on. You should get
> Mark Isaac to fess up about why this became an issue. It is sad and
> stupid, but why support something sad and stupid? This is the worst of
> TO, if you think otherwise you may want to try to figure out what is
> going on. Get Mark to tell you why he started this. It should be
> embarrassing, but the longer you go on in ignorance the more
> embarrassing it will be.
>
Did Mark Isaak start the repetitive nature of the posts people are
commenting about? That seems to be the issue. Maybe there’s more going on
between you and Mark, but is that relevant to multiple people focussing on
your preferred terminology? You could talk about ID and its adherents in
more productive ways.

RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
> On 12/9/2023 10:23 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>> On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
>>>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>>>>>>>
>>>> [Lots]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ID scam 1
>>>>>>> ID perps 5
>>>>>>> Top Six 1
>>>>>>> IDiotic 1
>>>>>>> IDiots 2
>>>>>>> denial 2
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, probably monkey see monkey do.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just 5 years to late to matter.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same
>>>> keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You may not know what is going on. You should get someone to explain it
>>> to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out.
>>>
>>> ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best
>>> evidences for IDiocy. It turned out that most of TO didn't understand
>>> what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
>>>
>>> What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
>>> accomplish anything.
>>>
>> If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All
>> concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in
>> probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the will?
>
> Just ask Mark Isaac when ID died on TO.

Did ID just die here locally and remain alive outside TO or did events on
TO cause ID to die globally? I’m confused, perhaps because I am
incompetent.

> The current whining about
> reality is due to the inability to accept responsibility for their own
> incompetence. The whiners at first claimed that I had harassed the
> IDiots into quiting, but they soon realized that, that was not true, and
> this is the result. Why support such an effort if you do not understand
> why it is going on?
>
Is calling people incompetent and whiners because they have differing
perceptions than you going to result in a beneficial outcome?
>
> The ID scam continues to be a topic of discussion on TO, and until that
> ends there will be no reason to quit doing what I have always done.
>
ID is definitely still a relevant topic here, but rumors of its demise may
be exaggerated. And whether the idea of ID has died, is the way you are
talking about it a successful approach? Who are you convincing? Regulars?
Lurkers? You?

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 11:37:07 AM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On 12/9/2023 10:23 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>> On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
> >>>> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>> [Lots]
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ID scam 1
> >>>>>>> ID perps 5
> >>>>>>> Top Six 1
> >>>>>>> IDiotic 1
> >>>>>>> IDiots 2
> >>>>>>> denial 2
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No, probably monkey see monkey do.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Just 5 years to late to matter.
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same
> >>>> keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> You may not know what is going on. You should get someone to explain it
> >>> to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out.
> >>>
> >>> ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best
> >>> evidences for IDiocy. It turned out that most of TO didn't understand
> >>> what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
> >>>
> >>> What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
> >>> accomplish anything.
> >>>
> >> If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All
> >> concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in
> >> probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the will?
> >
> > Just ask Mark Isaac when ID died on TO.
> Did ID just die here locally and remain alive outside TO or did events on
> TO cause ID to die globally? I’m confused, perhaps because I am
> incompetent.
> > The current whining about
> > reality is due to the inability to accept responsibility for their own
> > incompetence. The whiners at first claimed that I had harassed the
> > IDiots into quiting, but they soon realized that, that was not true, and
> > this is the result. Why support such an effort if you do not understand
> > why it is going on?
> >
> Is calling people incompetent and whiners because they have differing
> perceptions than you going to result in a beneficial outcome?
> >
> > The ID scam continues to be a topic of discussion on TO, and until that
> > ends there will be no reason to quit doing what I have always done.
> >
> ID is definitely still a relevant topic here, but rumors of its demise may
> be exaggerated. And whether the idea of ID has died, is the way you are
> talking about it a successful approach? Who are you convincing? Regulars?
> Lurkers? You?
I know for a fact (my brother-in-law) is a staunch fundamentalist, and there are
many like him. (He's a good guy anyway, BTW.). The audience here in TO is what,
three dozen are so? Hardly anyone knows what profound truths are to found here,
and if they should find out, I'd bet the reaction would be "what a bunch of dweebs".
But it's pretty amusing sometimes, now that I've learned not to take it too seriously.

erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 8:52:04 AM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 01:45:18 -0800 (PST), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03?PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
>>>>>>
>>>>> A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
>>>>> of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
>>>>>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
>>>>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
>>>>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>>>>>>
>>>>> Methodological naturalism works.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
>>>>> the Emperor idea has no clothes.
>>>>>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
>>>>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>>>>>>
>>>>> What is macroevolution?
>>>>
>>>> This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
>>>>
>>>> It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.
>>>
>>>
>>> In any case, microevolution is a necessary condition for
>>> macroevolution.
>>>
>> But is it sufficient?
> Depends on what is meant by "macroevolution". Some seem to treat macroevolution
> as something that requires additional powers from somewhere.
>
>
Maybe it’s influenced by my long ago readings of evodevo propaganda and a
smidgen of Gould, but I had suspicions extrapolationism falls short. There
are larger magnitude events in development such as pocket gopher cheek
pouches that made me go hmmmm… Not a god-gapping.

Gould had made a splash about rate genes and a less objectionable version
of Goldschmidt before hoxology took off as a discipline. He was NOT
promoting hopeful monsters though. Wallace Arthur made a splash about high
magnitude early acting genes but I think he later walked that back a bit.

On 12/12/2023 1:22 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 12/10/2023 2:19 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-10 04:23:48 +0000, *Hemidactylus* said:
>>>
>>>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
>>>>>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> [Lots]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ID scam 1
>>>>>>>>> ID perps 5
>>>>>>>>> Top Six 1
>>>>>>>>> IDiotic 1
>>>>>>>>> IDiots 2
>>>>>>>>> denial 2
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own
>>>>>>>> output.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, probably monkey see monkey do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just 5 years to late to matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same
>>>>>> keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You may not know what is going on.  You should get someone to explain it
>>>>> to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out.
>>>>>
>>>>> ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best
>>>>> evidences for IDiocy.  It turned out that most of TO didn't understand
>>>>> what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
>>>>>
>>>>> What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
>>>>> accomplish anything.
>>>>>
>>>> If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All
>>>> concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in
>>>> probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the
>>>> will?
>>>
>>> I think he explained that with his comment "monkey see monkey do".
>>> Assuming that the monkey in question is himself, he notices that it's
>>> been several hours since he last told us about IDperps and the Top Six
>>> and thinks he needs to copy out the same old stuff yet again in case
>>> we've forgotten.
>>>>
>>>> And if it’s too late to accomplish anything why pile it on more? You
>>>> can’t
>>>> make anything more dead unless we are fighting zombies. Did you suddenly
>>>> wake up in hospital in the middle of a desolate city?
>>>
>>> Never having used chatbot or seen it used I have no idea what John
>>> Harshman's comment meant.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> My guess is that you don't even know what is going on. You should get
>> Mark Isaac to fess up about why this became an issue. It is sad and
>> stupid, but why support something sad and stupid? This is the worst of
>> TO, if you think otherwise you may want to try to figure out what is
>> going on. Get Mark to tell you why he started this. It should be
>> embarrassing, but the longer you go on in ignorance the more
>> embarrassing it will be.
>>
> Did Mark Isaak start the repetitive nature of the posts people are
> commenting about? That seems to be the issue. Maybe there’s more going on
> between you and Mark, but is that relevant to multiple people focussing on
> your preferred terminology? You could talk about ID and its adherents in
> more productive ways.
>

He instigated it. Others just took up the issue and made it required.

IF you do not understand what you are doing, you should stop. That
would be my advice to all the clowns that joined Mark, and likely had
not idea why.

Ron Okimoto

On 12/12/2023 1:32 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>> On 12/9/2023 10:23 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> On 12/9/2023 2:30 PM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 13:11:44 -0600
>>>>> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 12/9/2023 11:00 AM, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/9/23 8:13 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>> [Lots]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ID scam 1
>>>>>>>> ID perps 5
>>>>>>>> Top Six 1
>>>>>>>> IDiotic 1
>>>>>>>> IDiots 2
>>>>>>>> denial 2
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is exactly what happens when a chatbot is educated on its own output.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, probably monkey see monkey do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just 5 years to late to matter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You're trying to keep a 5 year old argument still going? With the same
>>>>> keywords? I suggest it's way too much like OCD.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You may not know what is going on. You should get someone to explain it
>>>> to you, since you don't seem to want to understand what I have put out.
>>>>
>>>> ID died on TO 5 years ago when the ID perps put out their Top Six best
>>>> evidences for IDiocy. It turned out that most of TO didn't understand
>>>> what had happened except for the IDiots that had quit.
>>>>
>>>> What you are seeing is whining about reality 5 years too late to
>>>> accomplish anything.
>>>>
>>> If ID actually died here why are you still writing the obituary? All
>>> concerned parties have been amply informed by you already, no? Is ID in
>>> probate and you’re merely contacting named parties for reading of the will?
>>
>> Just ask Mark Isaac when ID died on TO.
>
> Did ID just die here locally and remain alive outside TO or did events on
> TO cause ID to die globally? I’m confused, perhaps because I am
> incompetent.

ID died among most of the IDiots posting at the time. If you didn't
notice most of them quit being IDiots 5 years ago. Mark and some others
blamed me for doing something that I had never done. They claimed that
I had harassed them with some lame refutation of the Top Six to make
them quit. When they realized it that, that didn't happen and that they
were falsely accusing me, they started making excuses for their stupid
behavior.

>
>> The current whining about
>> reality is due to the inability to accept responsibility for their own
>> incompetence. The whiners at first claimed that I had harassed the
>> IDiots into quiting, but they soon realized that, that was not true, and
>> this is the result. Why support such an effort if you do not understand
>> why it is going on?
>>
> Is calling people incompetent and whiners because they have differing
> perceptions than you going to result in a beneficial outcome?

Pick some different words for what they did. They demonstrated
themselves to have been incompetent for not understanding what had
actually happened, and they started to whine about it instead of just
accept reality and move on.

>>
>> The ID scam continues to be a topic of discussion on TO, and until that
>> ends there will be no reason to quit doing what I have always done.
>>
> ID is definitely still a relevant topic here, but rumors of its demise may
> be exaggerated. And whether the idea of ID has died, is the way you are
> talking about it a successful approach? Who are you convincing? Regulars?
> Lurkers? You?

If Kalkidas posts again, ask him how alive the ID scam is for him. Kalk
now claims that it just is not anything that he considers any more. It
is no longer important enough to think about. I have only claimed that
ID died on TO, and it did. You only have a liar like Nyikos supporting
the scam, and an incompetent like Dean who just keeps claiming that he
doesn't recall the past issues he has had with the Top Six. Dean isn't
anyone to put forward as supporting anything if he can't remember what
happened a few months ago. I noted at the time that the IDiots at
uncommon descent could not deal with the Top Six, and uncommon descent
was shut down just before Glenn finally gave up.

Pagano quit posting, Bill claimed that he had never supported the ID
scam, and hasn't supported it since. Bill seems to have quit posting.
Glenn tried to run and remain willfully ignorant, but then Nyikos rubbed
his face into the stupid thing that he was doing by supporting Glenn's
willful ignorance ploy, but ended up demonstrating that it was a stupid
thing to do. Glenn stopped posting after Nyikos took his side and found
out why all the other IDiots had quit the ID scam. I did not harass the
IDiots with any lame refutation of the Top Six. All that I had to do
was keep presenting the Top Six as the ID perps had given them to the
rubes, and none of them could deal with them in an honest and straight
forward manner. It turned out that none of them wanted the ID perps to
succeed in accomplishing any ID science because they didn't want to
believe in the designer that filled those gaps in the order in which
they must have logically occurred in this universe.

You seemed to have missed all of this, just like Mark and the others.
Harassing me about calling a perp a perp is just tragically stupid at
this time because it will never change what happened 5 years ago, and
the ID perps are still running the bait and switch scam. All ID has
been used for, for over 20 years is as bait to keep the Wedge strategy
alive. The switch scam has replaced ID as the wedge. The obfuscation
and science denial is all they have left, and all any IDiots can expect
out of them. Phillip Johnson made teaching ID an important part of his
Wedge strategy, but when it came time to put up or shut up, the ID perps
started running the bait and switch. No one is ever going to get the
promised ID science from the scam artists, and the ID perps tell the
rubes that the obfuscation and denial switch scam has nothing to do with
ID. Everyone knows that they are lying, and my guess is that they hope
the rubes know that they are lying too. The switch scam junk is just
the obfuscation and denial stupidity that the scientific creationists
used to sprinkle between their gap denial. Junk like the Melanic Moth
obfuscation and denial was a favorite of the Scientific creationists,
but the ID perps have to lie to the rubes because ID is tainted by their
bogus use of it, and for political purposes they have to try to claim
that the switch scam has nothing to do with their Biblical creationist
efforts.

Ron Okimoto
>

On 12/10/2023 2:21 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2023-12-09 20:32:12 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
>
>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 17:13:48 +0100
>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>>>
>> [Same old]
>>>
>>> ID scam 1
>>> ID perps 5
>>> Top Six 1
>>> IDiotic 1
>>> IDiots 2
>>> denial 2
>>>
>>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
>>> in England until 1987.
>>> Thanks, I took one look and decided it was too much for me; perhaps I
>>> need to write a parsing tool - no, that way lies madness also.
>
> Ayway, I was amused that RonO thinks I might be your sock-puppet --
> despite my having posted under a siungle name for at least 20 years.
> Have you ever thought I might be your sock-puppet?
>
>

I had to ask because two twerps doing the same thing seemed to be
ridiculous. You both are in good company. That is how Kalkidas used to
deal with reality.

Ron Okimoto

On 2023-12-12 4:08 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 8:52:04 AM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 01:45:18 -0800 (PST), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03?PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
>>>>>> of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
>>>>>>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
>>>>>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
>>>>>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Methodological naturalism works.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
>>>>>> the Emperor idea has no clothes.
>>>>>>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
>>>>>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> What is macroevolution?
>>>>>
>>>>> This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
>>>>>
>>>>> It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In any case, microevolution is a necessary condition for
>>>> macroevolution.
>>>>
>>> But is it sufficient?
>> Depends on what is meant by "macroevolution". Some seem to treat macroevolution
>> as something that requires additional powers from somewhere.
>>
>>
> Maybe it’s influenced by my long ago readings of evodevo propaganda and a
> smidgen of Gould, but I had suspicions extrapolationism falls short. There
> are larger magnitude events in development such as pocket gopher cheek
> pouches that made me go hmmmm… Not a god-gapping.
>
> Gould had made a splash about rate genes and a less objectionable version
> of Goldschmidt before hoxology took off as a discipline. He was NOT
> promoting hopeful monsters though. Wallace Arthur made a splash about high
> magnitude early acting genes but I think he later walked that back a bit.
>
I may be misremembering but I was under the impression that
macroevolution was evolution above the species level. So events that
separate a freely interbreeding population into two independently
evolving populations would be macroevoluionary. Some would be
accumulated microevolution but some would not be.
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

On Monday, December 11, 2023 at 1:17:04 AM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03 PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
> >>>
> >> A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
> >> of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
> >>>
> >>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
> >>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
> >>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
> >>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences.."
> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
> >>>
> >> Methodological naturalism works.
> >>>
> >>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
> >>>
> >> Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
> >> the Emperor idea has no clothes.
> >>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
> >>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
> >>>
> >> What is macroevolution?
> >
> > This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
> >
> > It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.
> >
> Thanks. It’s a wee bit paywalled so the “We review potential avenues for
> future research to establish how mechanisms at one scale (drift, mutation,
> migration, selection) translate to processes at the other scale
> (speciation, extinction, biogeographic dispersal) and vice versa.” bit that
> piqued my interest is inaccessible.

Try this link for free access to the full paper: rdcu.be/dgzgB

(That link shared from here: https://twitter.com/NatureEcoEvo/status/1678709688379011072)

>
> But still, what does macroevolution mean to you?

Macroevolution is fundamental contention in the evolution debate.

The paper highlights that significant gaps remain in getting from micro to macroevolution, e.g.:

"Here we argue that although substantial effort has been made to reconcile microevolution and macroevolution, much work remains to identify the links between biological processes at play. We highlight four major questions of evolutionary biology whose solutions require conceptual bridges between micro and macroevolution."

"Why microevolution may not be coupled with macroevolution. There are many reasons why all the details of microevolution would not predict macroevolution. The irst reason is that large macroevolutionary patterns may emerge unpredictably from microevolutionary processes (for example, the extinction risk of lineages may relect unusual bouts of strong selection rather than the average rate of selection)."

"The four questions we address highlight many of the challenges but also the advantages to be gained by reconciling microevolution within species and macroevolution above the species level. Success is not assured and we have listed reasons why in some cases it may not be possible to bridge across evolutionary scales. Yet, many of the previous attempts have already been illuminating. Seeming discrepancies between rates of evolution over long and short timescales have indicated the existence of potentially key understudied processes, such as bounded evolution and ephemeral evolution."

I (and most creationists) accept microevolution. In fact, I've presented simple but convincing computer simulations of microevolution here: https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/TmDpSRsjcok/m/9AqRFnTLAgAJ

EN offers the following definitions and distinctions:

"Microevolution (variation) takes place through genetic drift, natural selection, mutations, insertions/deletions, gene transfer, and chromosomal crossover, all of which produce countless observed variations in plant or animal populations throughout history. Examples include variations of the peppered moth, Galápagos finch beaks, new strains of flu viruses, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and variations in stickleback armour. Each year, thousands of papers are published dealing with examples of microevolution/variation."

"The definition of macroevolution is surprisingly non-precise for a scientific discipline. Macroevolution can be defined as evolution above the species level, or evolution on a “grand scale,” or microevolution + 3.8 billion years."

"Macroevolution is very different from microevolution. The reason there are so many countless observations of variation/microevolution is that it requires no statistically significant levels of novel genetic information; it is trivially easy to achieve. The reason that macroevolution has never been observed is that it requires statistically significant levels of novel genetic information. It is extremely difficult to achieve, but Darwinian theory predicts that genetic information can significantly increase over time. Falsifiable predictions can be made and these are worth examining."

https://evolutionnews.org/2015/07/microevolution/

DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2023-12-12 4:08 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 8:52:04 AM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 01:45:18 -0800 (PST), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03?PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
>>>>>>> of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
>>>>>>>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
>>>>>>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
>>>>>>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Methodological naturalism works.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
>>>>>>> the Emperor idea has no clothes.
>>>>>>>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
>>>>>>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What is macroevolution?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case, microevolution is a necessary condition for
>>>>> macroevolution.
>>>>>
>>>> But is it sufficient?
>>> Depends on what is meant by "macroevolution". Some seem to treat macroevolution
>>> as something that requires additional powers from somewhere.
>>>
>>>
>> Maybe it’s influenced by my long ago readings of evodevo propaganda and a
>> smidgen of Gould, but I had suspicions extrapolationism falls short. There
>> are larger magnitude events in development such as pocket gopher cheek
>> pouches that made me go hmmmm… Not a god-gapping.
>>
>> Gould had made a splash about rate genes and a less objectionable version
>> of Goldschmidt before hoxology took off as a discipline. He was NOT
>> promoting hopeful monsters though. Wallace Arthur made a splash about high
>> magnitude early acting genes but I think he later walked that back a bit.
>>
> I may be misremembering but I was under the impression that
> macroevolution was evolution above the species level. So events that
> separate a freely interbreeding population into two independently
> evolving populations would be macroevoluionary. Some would be
> accumulated microevolution but some would not be.

Nyikos has used the notion of megaevolution here before. Maybe a goal-post
shift for me now but also arguably distinct from micro- or macro-. Wallace
Arthur attributed it to GG Simpson and defines megaevolution: “The biggest
type of evolutionary change, such as that which produces a novelty or new
body plan. Examples include the evolutionary origin of the turtle shell and
of the vertebrate skeleton. There is still much debate as to whether
mega-evolution is explicable in terms of many micro-/macro-evolutionary
changes compounded over long periods of time; or whether it also includes
evolutionary processes that are rare or non-existent in the
micro-evolutionary realm.” from his _Evolution: a Developmental Approach_.

Arthur also said: “Evolutionary processes that generate new species, and in
the longer-term novelties and body plans, have been lumped together by many
authors as ‘macro-evolution’. However, it is better to split them into two
groups, as suggested by G.G. Simpson in the mid-20th century.”

So it may be a matter of conceptual lumping and splitting what
macroevolution pertains to. Phylum level disparity is well above the level
of mere species diversity. And I am just having some fun with ideas here,
which breaks apart from the current interpersonal strife.

On Tuesday, December 12, 2023 at 4:22:07 PM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> DB Cates <cate...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 2023-12-12 4:08 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >> erik simpson <eastsi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 8:52:04 AM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 01:45:18 -0800 (PST), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03?PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> >>>>>>> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
> >>>>>>> of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
> >>>>>>>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
> >>>>>>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
> >>>>>>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
> >>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Methodological naturalism works.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
> >>>>>>> the Emperor idea has no clothes.
> >>>>>>>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
> >>>>>>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What is macroevolution?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In any case, microevolution is a necessary condition for
> >>>>> macroevolution.
> >>>>>
> >>>> But is it sufficient?
> >>> Depends on what is meant by "macroevolution". Some seem to treat macroevolution
> >>> as something that requires additional powers from somewhere.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Maybe it’s influenced by my long ago readings of evodevo propaganda and a
> >> smidgen of Gould, but I had suspicions extrapolationism falls short. There
> >> are larger magnitude events in development such as pocket gopher cheek
> >> pouches that made me go hmmmm… Not a god-gapping.
> >>
> >> Gould had made a splash about rate genes and a less objectionable version
> >> of Goldschmidt before hoxology took off as a discipline. He was NOT
> >> promoting hopeful monsters though. Wallace Arthur made a splash about high
> >> magnitude early acting genes but I think he later walked that back a bit.
> >>
> > I may be misremembering but I was under the impression that
> > macroevolution was evolution above the species level. So events that
> > separate a freely interbreeding population into two independently
> > evolving populations would be macroevoluionary. Some would be
> > accumulated microevolution but some would not be.
> Nyikos has used the notion of megaevolution here before. Maybe a goal-post
> shift for me now but also arguably distinct from micro- or macro-. Wallace
> Arthur attributed it to GG Simpson and defines megaevolution: “The biggest
> type of evolutionary change, such as that which produces a novelty or new
> body plan. Examples include the evolutionary origin of the turtle shell and
> of the vertebrate skeleton. There is still much debate as to whether
> mega-evolution is explicable in terms of many micro-/macro-evolutionary
> changes compounded over long periods of time; or whether it also includes
> evolutionary processes that are rare or non-existent in the
> micro-evolutionary realm.” from his _Evolution: a Developmental Approach_.
>
> Arthur also said: “Evolutionary processes that generate new species, and in
> the longer-term novelties and body plans, have been lumped together by many
> authors as ‘macro-evolution’. However, it is better to split them into two
> groups, as suggested by G.G. Simpson in the mid-20th century.”
>
> So it may be a matter of conceptual lumping and splitting what
> macroevolution pertains to. Phylum level disparity is well above the level
> of mere species diversity. And I am just having some fun with ideas here,
> which breaks apart from the current interpersonal strife.
It's worth mentioning that phylum-level disparity is accomplished over very
long periods of time (100s My). Gould in his "Wonderful Life" made a big point
over the sudden appearance of so many "new" phyla. In fact, the common ancestor
of chordates and mollusks lived only about 50 My before the Cambrian. A Cambrian
taxonomist wouldn't have identified nearly as many "phyla" as we can see from our
vantage point, maybe only five: sponges, ctenophores, placazoans, cnidarians and
bilaterians. Unless he had DNA analysis at his disposal, he even might have lumped
ctenophores and cnidarians together. He probably would have recognized such sub-phyla
(he probably would have said orders) as arthropods, echinoderms, lophophorates, chordates,
and others. Of course this ur-taxonomist would have been almost as strange as a Precambrian
rabbit.

On 12/12/2023 23:54, DB Cates wrote:
> I may be misremembering but I was under the impression that
> macroevolution was evolution above the species level. So events that
> separate a freely interbreeding population into two independently
> evolving populations would be macroevoluionary. Some would be
> accumulated microevolution but some would not be.
> -

Evolution above the species level is one definition of macroevolution
(and by that definition, contrary to creationist claims, macroevolution
has been observed, even by the narrow definition of observation such
creationists apply to facts that want to discredit).

Commonly population genetics breaks up microevolutionary processes into
4 categories - drift, selection, mutation and gene flow.

Shoehorning allopolyploidy into mutation is a bit of a stretch.
Otherwise it's a 5th process, and since it often results in speciation,
by the above definition of macroevolution it's a macroevolutionary (in
part) process. Hybridisation resulting in apomixis is in a similar boat.

I do think that population formation and extinction should be seen also
be seen as an additional process.

On the other hand, some people see macroevolution as CHON to Ron.

--
alias Ernest Major

On 2023-12-12 6:20 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On 2023-12-12 4:08 PM, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>> erik simpson <eastside.erik@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, December 10, 2023 at 8:52:04 AM UTC-8, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Dec 2023 01:45:18 -0800 (PST), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Saturday, December 9, 2023 at 10:22:03?PM UTC+11, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
>>>>>>>> MarkE <me22...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Is this you, or how would you describe your belief system/personal epistemology?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A rolling stone of crushing doubt I push up hill every day in an exercise
>>>>>>>> of futility. I try not to “know” things based on blind faith.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Metaphysical naturalism (also called ontological naturalism,
>>>>>>>>> philosophical naturalism and antisupernaturalism) is a philosophical
>>>>>>>>> worldview which holds that there is nothing but natural elements,
>>>>>>>>> principles, and relations of the kind studied by the natural sciences."
>>>>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_naturalism
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Methodological naturalism works.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are atheism and metaphysical naturalism equivalent?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Atheism can be a form of metaphysical naturism if the presumption pushed is
>>>>>>>> the Emperor idea has no clothes.
>>>>>>>>> My own position: Christian/theist, old earth and microevolution yes,
>>>>>>>>> major doubt with OoL and macroevolution.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What is macroevolution?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-02116-7
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's far from a given that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In any case, microevolution is a necessary condition for
>>>>>> macroevolution.
>>>>>>
>>>>> But is it sufficient?
>>>> Depends on what is meant by "macroevolution". Some seem to treat macroevolution
>>>> as something that requires additional powers from somewhere.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Maybe it’s influenced by my long ago readings of evodevo propaganda and a
>>> smidgen of Gould, but I had suspicions extrapolationism falls short. There
>>> are larger magnitude events in development such as pocket gopher cheek
>>> pouches that made me go hmmmm… Not a god-gapping.
>>>
>>> Gould had made a splash about rate genes and a less objectionable version
>>> of Goldschmidt before hoxology took off as a discipline. He was NOT
>>> promoting hopeful monsters though. Wallace Arthur made a splash about high
>>> magnitude early acting genes but I think he later walked that back a bit.
>>>
>> I may be misremembering but I was under the impression that
>> macroevolution was evolution above the species level. So events that
>> separate a freely interbreeding population into two independently
>> evolving populations would be macroevoluionary. Some would be
>> accumulated microevolution but some would not be.
>
> Nyikos has used the notion of megaevolution here before. Maybe a goal-post
> shift for me now but also arguably distinct from micro- or macro-. Wallace
> Arthur attributed it to GG Simpson and defines megaevolution: “The biggest
> type of evolutionary change, such as that which produces a novelty or new
> body plan. Examples include the evolutionary origin of the turtle shell and
> of the vertebrate skeleton. There is still much debate as to whether
> mega-evolution is explicable in terms of many micro-/macro-evolutionary
> changes compounded over long periods of time; or whether it also includes
> evolutionary processes that are rare or non-existent in the
> micro-evolutionary realm.” from his _Evolution: a Developmental Approach_.
>
> Arthur also said: “Evolutionary processes that generate new species, and in
> the longer-term novelties and body plans, have been lumped together by many
> authors as ‘macro-evolution’. However, it is better to split them into two
> groups, as suggested by G.G. Simpson in the mid-20th century.”
>
> So it may be a matter of conceptual lumping and splitting what
> macroevolution pertains to. Phylum level disparity is well above the level
> of mere species diversity. And I am just having some fun with ideas here,
> which breaks apart from the current interpersonal strife.
>
I've never been impressed by the "novelty"/"body plan" arguments. Just
how much difference does there have to be called a novelty or new body
plan? Like most (all?) of biology, these distinctions can be made in
many cases but when examined as a whole it gets very fuzzy around the
edges. We may not know the details of how these differences arose by
evolution but I feel the evidence that it did so is overwhelming.
Are the mouse/elephant differences due to novelties or different body
plan? How about the wolf/whale connection. Photosynthesis? etc

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 17:52:17 -0600
RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:

> On 12/10/2023 2:21 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> > On 2023-12-09 20:32:12 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
> >
> >> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 17:13:48 +0100
> >> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
> >>>
> >> [Same old]
> >>>
> >>> ID scam 1
> >>> ID perps 5
> >>> Top Six 1
> >>> IDiotic 1
> >>> IDiots 2
> >>> denial 2
> >>>
> >>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
> >>> in England until 1987.
> >>> Thanks, I took one look and decided it was too much for me; perhaps I
> >>> need to write a parsing tool - no, that way lies madness also.
> >
> > Ayway, I was amused that RonO thinks I might be your sock-puppet --
> > despite my having posted under a siungle name for at least 20 years.
> > Have you ever thought I might be your sock-puppet?
> >
> >
>
> I had to ask because two twerps doing the same thing seemed to be
> ridiculous. You both are in good company. That is how Kalkidas used to
> deal with reality.
>

Ah. Well sometimes there really is a conspiracy. Other times it's just 2
or more people who share the same view.

JFTR I don't care a hoot about who said what 5 or 6 years ago, especially
if they're not here any more. Try not to bear grudges, it'll only wear you
down.

PS calling people names is also not going to convince them of your
viewpoint.

You may now have the last word.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On 12/13/2023 3:48 AM, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Dec 2023 17:52:17 -0600
> RonO <rokimoto@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On 12/10/2023 2:21 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>>> On 2023-12-09 20:32:12 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 9 Dec 2023 17:13:48 +0100
>>>> Athel Cornish-Bowden <me@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2023-12-09 14:45:20 +0000, RonO said:
>>>>>
>>>> [Same old]
>>>>>
>>>>> ID scam 1
>>>>> ID perps 5
>>>>> Top Six 1
>>>>> IDiotic 1
>>>>> IDiots 2
>>>>> denial 2
>>>>>
>>>>> If I've counted right the clear winner is ID perps.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 36 years; mainly
>>>>> in England until 1987.
>>>>> Thanks, I took one look and decided it was too much for me; perhaps I
>>>>> need to write a parsing tool - no, that way lies madness also.
>>>
>>> Ayway, I was amused that RonO thinks I might be your sock-puppet --
>>> despite my having posted under a siungle name for at least 20 years.
>>> Have you ever thought I might be your sock-puppet?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I had to ask because two twerps doing the same thing seemed to be
>> ridiculous. You both are in good company. That is how Kalkidas used to
>> deal with reality.
>>
>
> Ah. Well sometimes there really is a conspiracy. Other times it's just 2
> or more people who share the same view.

It is just such a stupid thing to do that, it is difficult to believe
that 3 people would do it.

>
> JFTR I don't care a hoot about who said what 5 or 6 years ago, especially
> if they're not here any more. Try not to bear grudges, it'll only wear you
> down.

That is your issue. If you don't want to understand why the current
fiasco is what it is, why participate in the fiasco?

>
> PS calling people names is also not going to convince them of your
> viewpoint.

It was never meant to convince them of my viewpoint. It is just
reminding them what they are. If they could have countered they would
have countered long ago. Instead you got counting.

Ron Okimoto

>
>
> You may now have the last word.
>
>
>
>