jillery wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:01:51 -0500, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> jillery wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:43:31 -0500, Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The main argument that I was taking issue was this. "If we descended
>>> >from monkeys why are there still monkeys." The very fact that, she
>>>> addressed this video in a response to me, right or wrong, I _assumed_
>>>> she thought it represented my position - it never did, it's something
>>>> that I've never said or posted.
>>>
>>>
>>> One more time: Nobody said or implied that was your position; not me,
>>> not the person speaking in the video, and not the parties who made it.
>>> To the contrary, I explicitly identified the PRATTs you have
>>> expressed, and "why are there still monkeys" was not among them. In
>>> other words, you made all that up, a lie you continue to repeat.
>>>
>>>
>>>> However, this got blown totally out of
>>>> proportion
>>>
>>>
>>> YOU, Ron Dean, are the one who blew it out of proportion, and continue
>>> to do so, just to avoid admitting you are inspired by pseudoskeptic
>>> sources.
>>>
>>>
>>>> and I'm accused of lying, dishonesty and deceit.
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently you want to leave a legacy of dishonesty, deception, and
>>> incompetence. Not the choice I would have made, but suit yourself.
>>>
>> I cannot leave this misunderstanding and misrepresentation, by Jill. I
>> said just above, I _assumed_, this was her representing my position,
>> since the video was addressed to me in a response; _not_ that I claimed
>> it to actually be the case. Again I said I _assumed...... Furthermore,
>> I'm not going to allow one person to drive me from TO, a newsgroup that
>> I've participated in for years - more than a decade.
>
>
> You identify no misunderstanding or misrepresentation by jillery.
> You fail to acknowledge that your _assumption_ is factually incorrect.
>
Okay, what I assumed was wrong. She did not purposely or intentionally
lay this on me.
>
> If in fact you don't claim that the speaker in the video was
> representing your position, then you have zero basis for your
> _assumption_, which is how you blew it out of proportion.
>
The video speaker? She don't know I exist: furthermore she was _not_
referring to Intelligent Design. So, admittedly I misunderstood Jill's
intent. I was wrong.
>
> Furthermore, nobody is trying to drive you from TO, and I am not the
> only one who identifies your misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
> You are not the victim here.
> To the contrary, you are the one who repeatedly and falsely and
> baselessly accuses me of bearing false witness against you.
>
I admitted I was mistaken regarding Jill's intent. For this I apologize.
>
>> As to being inspired by pseudo skeptics, perhaps this has been the case.
>> If there is common views between my views and opinions and these "pseudo
>> skeptics", it's because of common observations of flaws and common
>> observations of failures.
>
>
> Once again, if your common views were based on valid observations,
> then you could have derived similar conclusions from them. Instead,
> your common views are based on common misrepresentations and
> misunderstandings of those observations, which is best explained by
> your exposure to their views. Not sure how even you *still* don't
> understand this.
>
I realize they, G&E attempted to explain what they observed in the
fossil record _within_ the_ _contest_ of evolution.
>
>> Not that I haven't read books primarily by
>> pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and
>> Dr Niles Eldredge.
>
>
> The above is a good example of your misrepresentations and
> misunderstandings. To say Gould and Eldredge are evolution
> pseudoskeptics is completely contrary to what they have repeatedly and
> publicly stated.
>
I was just being cynical here. I _knew_ both G&E were dedicated and
convinced evolutionist. And they strongly opposed and resented the
opposition using their words in support of their views. But they pointed
out facts that were virtually ignored since Darwin. The prevailing
absence of gradualism in the appearance of _most_ species and the
unchanged (stasis) nature of these species during their tenure on earth
which they explained by punctuated equilibrium.
>
>
>> If anyone were to seriously question the claims of
>> evolutionist, such difficulties should be obvious. So, it followers
>> that, there has to be acceptance without questioning in many cases: and
>> this is an unscientific approach.
>
>
> To the contrary, based on your posts, you have no idea what are the
> claims of evolutionists, nor how to seriously question them.
>
>
>> I realize that Gould and Eldredge were serious, dedicated and unwavering
>> evolution who resented their opposition, skeptics who appealed to their
>> works in support of their positions. But G & E were sincere and _honest_
>> enough to draw attention to some of main shortcomings and flaws of
>> modern evolution.
>
>
> The one claim you mention from G&E is punctuated equilibrium. This is
> neither a flaw nor a shortcoming of modern evolution.
>
Stasis was _not_ what was expected. In the two books, that I have on
hand at this moment, "The Panda's Thumb" copyright: 1980 by Stephen J.
Gould and another book entitled "Punctuated Equilibrium", written by
Gould and copyright: 2007 by the President and fellows of Harvard
University.
In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that "in
most species appear in suddenly in the fossil record with no
intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
[pg-180] "but punctuation may only record an absence of intermediary
data" [pg 124] Punctuated Equilibrium.

The reality of stasis in the fossil record was ignored, although it was
brought to Darwin's attention stasis was ignored or seen by
paleontologist as "no data for evolution". But Gould insisted that
"Stasis is data" pg 20-26 Punctuated Equilibrium.

It's quite understandable as to why stasis (no change) was ignored or
seen as no data. But this is exactly what both ID proponents and
scientific creationism would expect.

> This has been explained to you many times by many posters. That's
what makes it a PRATT.
>
Please explain the abrupt appearance of most species in the rocks with
no intermediate links in earlier strata followed by the no data
nomenclature for stasis in the fossil record.
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>

Martin Harran wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:01:51 -0500, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> jillery wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:43:31 -0500, Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The main argument that I was taking issue was this. "If we descended
>>> >from monkeys why are there still monkeys." The very fact that, she
>>>> addressed this video in a response to me, right or wrong, I _assumed_
>>>> she thought it represented my position - it never did, it's something
>>>> that I've never said or posted.
>>>
>>>
>>> One more time: Nobody said or implied that was your position; not me,
>>> not the person speaking in the video, and not the parties who made it.
>>> To the contrary, I explicitly identified the PRATTs you have
>>> expressed, and "why are there still monkeys" was not among them. In
>>> other words, you made all that up, a lie you continue to repeat.
>>>
>>>
>>>> However, this got blown totally out of
>>>> proportion
>>>
>>>
>>> YOU, Ron Dean, are the one who blew it out of proportion, and continue
>>> to do so, just to avoid admitting you are inspired by pseudoskeptic
>>> sources.
>>>
>>>
>>>> and I'm accused of lying, dishonesty and deceit.
>>>
>>>
>>> Apparently you want to leave a legacy of dishonesty, deception, and
>>> incompetence. Not the choice I would have made, but suit yourself.
>>>
>> I cannot leave this misunderstanding and misrepresentation, by Jill.
>
> Oh dear, you're obviously not clued into the Last Word rule.
>
Never heard of it!
>
>> I
>> said just above, I _assumed_, this was her representing my position,
>> since the video was addressed to me in a response; _not_ that I claimed
>> it to actually be the case. Again I said I _assumed...... Furthermore,
>> I'm not going to allow one person to drive me from TO, a newsgroup that
>> I've participated in for years - more than a decade.
>>
>> As to being inspired by pseudo skeptics, perhaps this has been the case.
>> If there is common views between my views and opinions and these "pseudo
>> skeptics", it's because of common observations of flaws and common
>> observations of failures. Not that I haven't read books primarily by
>> pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and
>> Dr Niles Eldredge. If anyone were to seriously question the claims of
>> evolutionist, such difficulties should be obvious. So, it followers
>> that, there has to be acceptance without questioning in many cases: and
>> this is an unscientific approach.
>>
>> I realize that Gould and Eldredge were serious, dedicated and unwavering
>> evolution who resented their opposition, skeptics who appealed to their
>> works in support of their positions. But G & E were sincere and _honest_
>> enough to draw attention to some of main shortcomings and fflaws of
>> modern evolution. .
>
> Your claim of "shortcomings and flaws" is a massive misrepresentation.
> As has been explained to you ad nauseam, G&E added to the body of
> knowledge regarding one specific aspect of the ToE and they themselves
> emphasised that what they were finding did not undermine the main
> thrust of that theory.
>
> I don't know of G&E having any resentment about opposition to their
> ideas; what they certainly resented was opponents who misrepresented
> their findings, just like you have persistently done by claiming that
> despite having no relevant qualifications of any kind, you understand
> better than them the implications of their work and accusing them of
> allowing their research to be contaminated by a particular worldview.
>
>>>
>>> --
>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>>
>

On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 2:08:12 AM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
> jillery wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:01:51 -0500, Ron Dean
> > <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> jillery wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:43:31 -0500, Ron Dean
> >>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The main argument that I was taking issue was this. "If we descended
> >>> >from monkeys why are there still monkeys." The very fact that, she
> >>>> addressed this video in a response to me, right or wrong, I _assumed_
> >>>> she thought it represented my position - it never did, it's something
> >>>> that I've never said or posted.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> One more time: Nobody said or implied that was your position; not me,
> >>> not the person speaking in the video, and not the parties who made it..
> >>> To the contrary, I explicitly identified the PRATTs you have
> >>> expressed, and "why are there still monkeys" was not among them. In
> >>> other words, you made all that up, a lie you continue to repeat.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> However, this got blown totally out of
> >>>> proportion
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> YOU, Ron Dean, are the one who blew it out of proportion, and continue
> >>> to do so, just to avoid admitting you are inspired by pseudoskeptic
> >>> sources.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> and I'm accused of lying, dishonesty and deceit.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Apparently you want to leave a legacy of dishonesty, deception, and
> >>> incompetence. Not the choice I would have made, but suit yourself.
> >>>
> >> I cannot leave this misunderstanding and misrepresentation, by Jill. I
> >> said just above, I _assumed_, this was her representing my position,
> >> since the video was addressed to me in a response; _not_ that I claimed
> >> it to actually be the case. Again I said I _assumed...... Furthermore,
> >> I'm not going to allow one person to drive me from TO, a newsgroup that
> >> I've participated in for years - more than a decade.
> >
> >
> > You identify no misunderstanding or misrepresentation by jillery.
> > You fail to acknowledge that your _assumption_ is factually incorrect.
> >
> Okay, what I assumed was wrong. She did not purposely or intentionally
> lay this on me.
> >
> > If in fact you don't claim that the speaker in the video was
> > representing your position, then you have zero basis for your
> > _assumption_, which is how you blew it out of proportion.
> >
> The video speaker? She don't know I exist: furthermore she was _not_
> referring to Intelligent Design. So, admittedly I misunderstood Jill's
> intent. I was wrong.
> >
> > Furthermore, nobody is trying to drive you from TO, and I am not the
> > only one who identifies your misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
> > You are not the victim here.
> > To the contrary, you are the one who repeatedly and falsely and
> > baselessly accuses me of bearing false witness against you.
> >
> I admitted I was mistaken regarding Jill's intent. For this I apologize.
> >
> >> As to being inspired by pseudo skeptics, perhaps this has been the case.
> >> If there is common views between my views and opinions and these "pseudo
> >> skeptics", it's because of common observations of flaws and common
> >> observations of failures.
> >
> >
> > Once again, if your common views were based on valid observations,
> > then you could have derived similar conclusions from them. Instead,
> > your common views are based on common misrepresentations and
> > misunderstandings of those observations, which is best explained by
> > your exposure to their views. Not sure how even you *still* don't
> > understand this.
> >
> I realize they, G&E attempted to explain what they observed in the
> fossil record _within_ the_ _contest_ of evolution.
> >
> >> Not that I haven't read books primarily by
> >> pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and
> >> Dr Niles Eldredge.
> >
> >
> > The above is a good example of your misrepresentations and
> > misunderstandings. To say Gould and Eldredge are evolution
> > pseudoskeptics is completely contrary to what they have repeatedly and
> > publicly stated.
> >
> I was just being cynical here. I _knew_ both G&E were dedicated and
> convinced evolutionist. And they strongly opposed and resented the
> opposition using their words in support of their views. But they pointed
> out facts that were virtually ignored since Darwin. The prevailing
> absence of gradualism in the appearance of _most_ species and the
> unchanged (stasis) nature of these species during their tenure on earth
> which they explained by punctuated equilibrium.
> >
> >
> >> If anyone were to seriously question the claims of
> >> evolutionist, such difficulties should be obvious. So, it followers
> >> that, there has to be acceptance without questioning in many cases: and
> >> this is an unscientific approach.
> >
> >
> > To the contrary, based on your posts, you have no idea what are the
> > claims of evolutionists, nor how to seriously question them.
> >
> >
> >> I realize that Gould and Eldredge were serious, dedicated and unwavering
> >> evolution who resented their opposition, skeptics who appealed to their
> >> works in support of their positions. But G & E were sincere and _honest_
> >> enough to draw attention to some of main shortcomings and flaws of
> >> modern evolution.
> >
> >
> > The one claim you mention from G&E is punctuated equilibrium. This is
> > neither a flaw nor a shortcoming of modern evolution.
> >
> Stasis was _not_ what was expected. In the two books, that I have on
> hand at this moment, "The Panda's Thumb" copyright: 1980 by Stephen J.
> Gould and another book entitled "Punctuated Equilibrium", written by
> Gould and copyright: 2007 by the President and fellows of Harvard
> University.
> In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that "in
> most species appear in suddenly in the fossil record with no
> intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
> [pg-180] "but punctuation may only record an absence of intermediary
> data" [pg 124] Punctuated Equilibrium.
>
> The reality of stasis in the fossil record was ignored, although it was
> brought to Darwin's attention stasis was ignored or seen by
> paleontologist as "no data for evolution". But Gould insisted that
> "Stasis is data" pg 20-26 Punctuated Equilibrium.
>
> It's quite understandable as to why stasis (no change) was ignored or
> seen as no data. But this is exactly what both ID proponents and
> scientific creationism would expect.

None of this is true, and you've been given copious quotes going back
to Darwin. There was never an expectation that there should be a constant
speed of evolution, and Darwin was quite explicit about this. Equally,
the conserving effect of natural selection was clear from the beginning,

Gould himself in explicit that there are massive amounts of ancestral fossils,
just on the level above species, something no ID theory can really explain, but the
ToE does. So you are also wrong in your repeated claims that the ToE is based
on absence of data.

You also misunderstand what scientist mean when they say something is "no data for" a
theory - it merely means that it is neutral, and on its own not capable to distinguish
between different theories,

Neither was stasis "ignored", contrary to your claim, and that too has been demonstrated
to you by copious references. Indeed, citing Gould, one of the most-read and most-cited
authors in the field, makes this claim utterly ridiculous.

Stasis matters, in his account, because there are two competing explanations for it,
both firmly within the evolutionary paradigm. One is the concept of speciation that Mayr
developed, where "coadapted gene complexes" actively prevent change in species. These
then get broken in "revolutionary" events that result in speciation in peripherally isolated
populations. Gould and Eldredge argued the fossil record provides evidence for this.
The other view is that no such complexes exist, at least not on any significant scale, and
that the better explanation for the fossil record is that it is simply an artefact of sampling.
Both were are one point serious contenders, but the failure of the Mayr-Gould-Eldredge axis to
find such a mechanism in the genes, even when our knowledge of them increased exponentially,
coupled with better and better observational evidence for the sampling effects, meant this
position fell largely out of favour.

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:11:09 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:01:51 -0500, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jillery wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:43:31 -0500, Ron Dean
>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The main argument that I was taking issue was this. "If we descended
>>>> >from monkeys why are there still monkeys." The very fact that, she
>>>>> addressed this video in a response to me, right or wrong, I _assumed_
>>>>> she thought it represented my position - it never did, it's something
>>>>> that I've never said or posted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One more time: Nobody said or implied that was your position; not me,
>>>> not the person speaking in the video, and not the parties who made it.
>>>> To the contrary, I explicitly identified the PRATTs you have
>>>> expressed, and "why are there still monkeys" was not among them. In
>>>> other words, you made all that up, a lie you continue to repeat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> However, this got blown totally out of
>>>>> proportion
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> YOU, Ron Dean, are the one who blew it out of proportion, and continue
>>>> to do so, just to avoid admitting you are inspired by pseudoskeptic
>>>> sources.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and I'm accused of lying, dishonesty and deceit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apparently you want to leave a legacy of dishonesty, deception, and
>>>> incompetence. Not the choice I would have made, but suit yourself.
>>>>
>>> I cannot leave this misunderstanding and misrepresentation, by Jill.
>>
>> Oh dear, you're obviously not clued into the Last Word rule.
> >
>Never heard of it!

Some people think that ultimate victory in an argument is achieved by
having the last word in that debate, irrespective of the actual
quality of the point made in that final contribution. It leads to
interminable exchanges where no matter what A posts, B will respond in
some way or other and this continues until A gets fed up with it
giving victory to B.

I leave you to figure out for yourself what posters that applies to
around here.

>>
>>> I
>>> said just above, I _assumed_, this was her representing my position,
>>> since the video was addressed to me in a response; _not_ that I claimed
>>> it to actually be the case. Again I said I _assumed...... Furthermore,
>>> I'm not going to allow one person to drive me from TO, a newsgroup that
>>> I've participated in for years - more than a decade.
>>>
>>> As to being inspired by pseudo skeptics, perhaps this has been the case.
>>> If there is common views between my views and opinions and these "pseudo
>>> skeptics", it's because of common observations of flaws and common
>>> observations of failures. Not that I haven't read books primarily by
>>> pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and
>>> Dr Niles Eldredge. If anyone were to seriously question the claims of
>>> evolutionist, such difficulties should be obvious. So, it followers
>>> that, there has to be acceptance without questioning in many cases: and
>>> this is an unscientific approach.
>>>
>>> I realize that Gould and Eldredge were serious, dedicated and unwavering
>>> evolution who resented their opposition, skeptics who appealed to their
>>> works in support of their positions. But G & E were sincere and _honest_
>>> enough to draw attention to some of main shortcomings and fflaws of
>>> modern evolution. .
>>
>> Your claim of "shortcomings and flaws" is a massive misrepresentation.
>> As has been explained to you ad nauseam, G&E added to the body of
>> knowledge regarding one specific aspect of the ToE and they themselves
>> emphasised that what they were finding did not undermine the main
>> thrust of that theory.
>>
>> I don't know of G&E having any resentment about opposition to their
>> ideas; what they certainly resented was opponents who misrepresented
>> their findings, just like you have persistently done by claiming that
>> despite having no relevant qualifications of any kind, you understand
>> better than them the implications of their work and accusing them of
>> allowing their research to be contaminated by a particular worldview.
>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>>>>
>>

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 12:22:45 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

>>I cannot leave this misunderstanding and misrepresentation, by Jill.
>
>Oh dear, you're obviously not clued into the Last Word rule.

Oh dear, you're obviously not clued into Not Speaking About Things You
Have No Idea What You're Talking About rule.

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

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:06:52 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:01:51 -0500, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> jillery wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:43:31 -0500, Ron Dean
>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The main argument that I was taking issue was this. "If we descended
>>>> >from monkeys why are there still monkeys." The very fact that, she
>>>>> addressed this video in a response to me, right or wrong, I _assumed_
>>>>> she thought it represented my position - it never did, it's something
>>>>> that I've never said or posted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One more time: Nobody said or implied that was your position; not me,
>>>> not the person speaking in the video, and not the parties who made it.
>>>> To the contrary, I explicitly identified the PRATTs you have
>>>> expressed, and "why are there still monkeys" was not among them. In
>>>> other words, you made all that up, a lie you continue to repeat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> However, this got blown totally out of
>>>>> proportion
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> YOU, Ron Dean, are the one who blew it out of proportion, and continue
>>>> to do so, just to avoid admitting you are inspired by pseudoskeptic
>>>> sources.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> and I'm accused of lying, dishonesty and deceit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Apparently you want to leave a legacy of dishonesty, deception, and
>>>> incompetence. Not the choice I would have made, but suit yourself.
>>>>
>>> I cannot leave this misunderstanding and misrepresentation, by Jill. I
>>> said just above, I _assumed_, this was her representing my position,
>>> since the video was addressed to me in a response; _not_ that I claimed
>>> it to actually be the case. Again I said I _assumed...... Furthermore,
>>> I'm not going to allow one person to drive me from TO, a newsgroup that
>>> I've participated in for years - more than a decade.
>>
>>
>> You identify no misunderstanding or misrepresentation by jillery.
>> You fail to acknowledge that your _assumption_ is factually incorrect.
>>
>Okay, what I assumed was wrong. She did not purposely or intentionally
>lay this on me.
>>
>> If in fact you don't claim that the speaker in the video was
>> representing your position, then you have zero basis for your
>> _assumption_, which is how you blew it out of proportion.
>>
>The video speaker? She don't know I exist: furthermore she was _not_
>referring to Intelligent Design.

The above contradicts your prior claims.

>So, admittedly I misunderstood Jill's
>intent. I was wrong.
>> Furthermore, nobody is trying to drive you from TO, and I am not the
>> only one who identifies your misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
>> You are not the victim here.
>> To the contrary, you are the one who repeatedly and falsely and
>> baselessly accuses me of bearing false witness against you.
>>
>I admitted I was mistaken regarding Jill's intent. For this I apologize.

Not good enough. You repeatedly ignored jillery's explicitly expressed
intent, accused jillery of bearing false witness against you, and of
trying to drive you from TO. Those aren't just mistakes, but are
explicit lies and deceptions.

>>> As to being inspired by pseudo skeptics, perhaps this has been the case.
>>> If there is common views between my views and opinions and these "pseudo
>>> skeptics", it's because of common observations of flaws and common
>>> observations of failures.
>>
>>
>> Once again, if your common views were based on valid observations,
>> then you could have derived similar conclusions from them. Instead,
>> your common views are based on common misrepresentations and
>> misunderstandings of those observations, which is best explained by
>> your exposure to their views. Not sure how even you *still* don't
>> understand this.
>>
>I realize they, G&E attempted to explain what they observed in the
>fossil record _within_ the_ _contest_ of evolution.

You continue to evade the point. If you claim 2+2=4, that's
consistent with arithmetic rules. OTOH if you claim evolution is
atheism, that's a claim contrary to any recognized definitions. When
you claim there are no transitional fossils, that's a claim contrary
to fact and isn't derived from actual observation.

>>> Not that I haven't read books primarily by
>>> pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and
>>> Dr Niles Eldredge.
>>
>>
>> The above is a good example of your misrepresentations and
>> misunderstandings. To say Gould and Eldredge are evolution
>> pseudoskeptics is completely contrary to what they have repeatedly and
>> publicly stated.
>>
> I was just being cynical here. I _knew_ both G&E were dedicated and
>convinced evolutionist. And they strongly opposed and resented the
>opposition using their words in support of their views. But they pointed
>out facts that were virtually ignored since Darwin. The prevailing
>absence of gradualism in the appearance of _most_ species and the
>unchanged (stasis) nature of these species during their tenure on earth
>which they explained by punctuated equilibrium.

NOTA says anything about evolution's flaws and failures. Your
repeated misrepresentations of G&E don't support your expressed lines
of reasoning.

>>> If anyone were to seriously question the claims of
>>> evolutionist, such difficulties should be obvious. So, it followers
>>> that, there has to be acceptance without questioning in many cases: and
>>> this is an unscientific approach.
>>
>>
>> To the contrary, based on your posts, you have no idea what are the
>> claims of evolutionists, nor how to seriously question them.
>>
>>
>>> I realize that Gould and Eldredge were serious, dedicated and unwavering
>>> evolution who resented their opposition, skeptics who appealed to their
>>> works in support of their positions. But G & E were sincere and _honest_
>>> enough to draw attention to some of main shortcomings and flaws of
>>> modern evolution.
>>
>>
>> The one claim you mention from G&E is punctuated equilibrium. This is
>> neither a flaw nor a shortcoming of modern evolution.
>>
>Stasis was _not_ what was expected. In the two books, that I have on
>hand at this moment, "The Panda's Thumb" copyright: 1980 by Stephen J.
>Gould and another book entitled "Punctuated Equilibrium", written by
>Gould and copyright: 2007 by the President and fellows of Harvard
>University.
>In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that "in
>most species appear in suddenly in the fossil record with no
>intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
>[pg-180] "but punctuation may only record an absence of intermediary
>data" [pg 124] Punctuated Equilibrium.
>
>The reality of stasis in the fossil record was ignored, although it was
>brought to Darwin's attention stasis was ignored or seen by
>paleontologist as "no data for evolution". But Gould insisted that
>"Stasis is data" pg 20-26 Punctuated Equilibrium.
>
>It's quite understandable as to why stasis (no change) was ignored or
>seen as no data. But this is exactly what both ID proponents and
>scientific creationism would expect.

Even if the fossil record was consistent with what ID and scientific
creationism(?) expect, which it isn't, the fossil record is also
consistent with what paleontologists expect. You insist Punctuated
Equilibrium is contrary to evolution because you have a perverse
misunderstanding of what G&E and evolution say.

> > This has been explained to you many times by many posters. That's
> > what makes it a PRATT.
> >
>Please explain the abrupt appearance of most species in the rocks with
>no intermediate links in earlier strata followed by the no data
>nomenclature for stasis in the fossil record.

Short answer: You have no idea what qualifies as "intermediate links"
an "no data". If you really want a longer answer, refer to replies to
your previous posts, or even better, read some authoritative books on
the subject.

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 09:59:43 +0000, Martin Harran
<martinharran@gmail.com> wrote:

>Some people think that ultimate victory in an argument is achieved by
>having the last word in that debate, irrespective of the actual
>quality of the point made in that final contribution. It leads to
>interminable exchanges where no matter what A posts, B will respond in
>some way or other and this continues until A gets fed up with it
>giving victory to B.
>
>I leave you to figure out for yourself what posters that applies to
>around here.

Sounds like you.

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

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:06:52 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that "in
>most species appear in suddenly in the fossil record with no
>intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
>[pg-180]

But those abruptly appearing species themselves often constitute
intermediate forms between taxa above the species level.

jillery wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:06:52 -0500, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> jillery wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:01:51 -0500, Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:43:31 -0500, Ron Dean
>>>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The main argument that I was taking issue was this. "If we descended
>>>>> >from monkeys why are there still monkeys." The very fact that, she
>>>>>> addressed this video in a response to me, right or wrong, I _assumed_
>>>>>> she thought it represented my position - it never did, it's something
>>>>>> that I've never said or posted.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> One more time: Nobody said or implied that was your position; not me,
>>>>> not the person speaking in the video, and not the parties who made it.
>>>>> To the contrary, I explicitly identified the PRATTs you have
>>>>> expressed, and "why are there still monkeys" was not among them. In
>>>>> other words, you made all that up, a lie you continue to repeat.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> However, this got blown totally out of
>>>>>> proportion
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> YOU, Ron Dean, are the one who blew it out of proportion, and continue
>>>>> to do so, just to avoid admitting you are inspired by pseudoskeptic
>>>>> sources.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and I'm accused of lying, dishonesty and deceit.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently you want to leave a legacy of dishonesty, deception, and
>>>>> incompetence. Not the choice I would have made, but suit yourself.
>>>>>
>>>> I cannot leave this misunderstanding and misrepresentation, by Jill. I
>>>> said just above, I _assumed_, this was her representing my position,
>>>> since the video was addressed to me in a response; _not_ that I claimed
>>>> it to actually be the case. Again I said I _assumed...... Furthermore,
>>>> I'm not going to allow one person to drive me from TO, a newsgroup that
>>>> I've participated in for years - more than a decade.
>>>
>>>
>>> You identify no misunderstanding or misrepresentation by jillery.
>>> You fail to acknowledge that your _assumption_ is factually incorrect.
>>>
>> Okay, what I assumed was wrong. She did not purposely or intentionally
>> lay this on me.
>>>
>>> If in fact you don't claim that the speaker in the video was
>>> representing your position, then you have zero basis for your
>>> _assumption_, which is how you blew it out of proportion.
>>>
>> The video speaker? She don't know I exist: furthermore she was _not_
>> referring to Intelligent Design.
>
>
> The above contradicts your prior claims.
>
>
>> So, admittedly I misunderstood Jill's
>> intent. I was wrong.
>>> Furthermore, nobody is trying to drive you from TO, and I am not the
>>> only one who identifies your misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
>>> You are not the victim here.
>>> To the contrary, you are the one who repeatedly and falsely and
>>> baselessly accuses me of bearing false witness against you.
>>>
>> I admitted I was mistaken regarding Jill's intent. For this I apologize.
>
>
> Not good enough. You repeatedly ignored jillery's explicitly expressed
> intent, accused jillery of bearing false witness against you, and of
> trying to drive you from TO. Those aren't just mistakes, but are
> explicit lies and deceptions.
>
>
>>>> As to being inspired by pseudo skeptics, perhaps this has been the case.
>>>> If there is common views between my views and opinions and these "pseudo
>>>> skeptics", it's because of common observations of flaws and common
>>>> observations of failures.
>>>
>>>
>>> Once again, if your common views were based on valid observations,
>>> then you could have derived similar conclusions from them. Instead,
>>> your common views are based on common misrepresentations and
>>> misunderstandings of those observations, which is best explained by
>>> your exposure to their views. Not sure how even you *still* don't
>>> understand this.
>>>
>> I realize they, G&E attempted to explain what they observed in the
>> fossil record _within_ the_ _contest_ of evolution.
>
>
> You continue to evade the point. If you claim 2+2=4, that's
> consistent with arithmetic rules. OTOH if you claim evolution is
> atheism, that's a claim contrary to any recognized definitions. When
> you claim there are no transitional fossils, that's a claim contrary
> to fact and isn't derived from actual observation.
>
>
>>>> Not that I haven't read books primarily by
>>>> pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and
>>>> Dr Niles Eldredge.
>>>
>>>
>>> The above is a good example of your misrepresentations and
>>> misunderstandings. To say Gould and Eldredge are evolution
>>> pseudoskeptics is completely contrary to what they have repeatedly and
>>> publicly stated.
>>>
>> I was just being cynical here. I _knew_ both G&E were dedicated and
>> convinced evolutionist. And they strongly opposed and resented the
>> opposition using their words in support of their views. But they pointed
>> out facts that were virtually ignored since Darwin. The prevailing
>> absence of gradualism in the appearance of _most_ species and the
>> unchanged (stasis) nature of these species during their tenure on earth
>> which they explained by punctuated equilibrium.
>
>
> NOTA says anything about evolution's flaws and failures. Your
> repeated misrepresentations of G&E don't support your expressed lines
> of reasoning.
>
You accuse me of misrepresentation G&E, but I quote them word for word,
so I fail to understand how this misrepresents them?

>
>>>> If anyone were to seriously question the claims of
>>>> evolutionist, such difficulties should be obvious. So, it followers
>>>> that, there has to be acceptance without questioning in many cases: and
>>>> this is an unscientific approach.
>>>
>>>
>>> To the contrary, based on your posts, you have no idea what are the
>>> claims of evolutionists, nor how to seriously question them.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I realize that Gould and Eldredge were serious, dedicated and unwavering
>>>> evolution who resented their opposition, skeptics who appealed to their
>>>> works in support of their positions. But G & E were sincere and _honest_
>>>> enough to draw attention to some of main shortcomings and flaws of
>>>> modern evolution.
>>>
>>>
>>> The one claim you mention from G&E is punctuated equilibrium. This is
>>> neither a flaw nor a shortcoming of modern evolution.
>>>
>> Stasis was _not_ what was expected. In the two books, that I have on
>> hand at this moment, "The Panda's Thumb" copyright: 1980 by Stephen J.
>> Gould and another book entitled "Punctuated Equilibrium", written by
>> Gould and copyright: 2007 by the President and fellows of Harvard
>> University.
>> In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that "in
>> most species appear in suddenly in the fossil record with no
>> intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
>> [pg-180] "but punctuation may only record an absence of intermediary
>> data" [pg 124] Punctuated Equilibrium.
>>
>> The reality of stasis in the fossil record was ignored, although it was
>> brought to Darwin's attention stasis was ignored or seen by
>> paleontologist as "no data for evolution". But Gould insisted that
>> "Stasis is data" pg 20-26 Punctuated Equilibrium.
>>
>> It's quite understandable as to why stasis (no change) was ignored or
>> seen as no data. But this is exactly what both ID proponents and
>> scientific creationism would expect.
>
>
> Even if the fossil record was consistent with what ID and scientific
> creationism(?) expect, which it isn't, the fossil record is also
> consistent with what paleontologists expect.
>
OF course, stasis, stability and no change is what ID would expect. But
to the contrary while stasis was brought up to Darwin, it was ignored
until except by E. Myer, and later stasis was revisited by G&E.

On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 4:33:13 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
> jillery wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:06:52 -0500, Ron Dean
> > <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> jillery wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:01:51 -0500, Ron Dean
> >>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> jillery wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:43:31 -0500, Ron Dean
> >>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The main argument that I was taking issue was this. "If we descended
> >>>>> >from monkeys why are there still monkeys." The very fact that, she
> >>>>>> addressed this video in a response to me, right or wrong, I _assumed_
> >>>>>> she thought it represented my position - it never did, it's something
> >>>>>> that I've never said or posted.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One more time: Nobody said or implied that was your position; not me,
> >>>>> not the person speaking in the video, and not the parties who made it.
> >>>>> To the contrary, I explicitly identified the PRATTs you have
> >>>>> expressed, and "why are there still monkeys" was not among them. In
> >>>>> other words, you made all that up, a lie you continue to repeat.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> However, this got blown totally out of
> >>>>>> proportion
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> YOU, Ron Dean, are the one who blew it out of proportion, and continue
> >>>>> to do so, just to avoid admitting you are inspired by pseudoskeptic
> >>>>> sources.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> and I'm accused of lying, dishonesty and deceit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Apparently you want to leave a legacy of dishonesty, deception, and
> >>>>> incompetence. Not the choice I would have made, but suit yourself.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I cannot leave this misunderstanding and misrepresentation, by Jill. I
> >>>> said just above, I _assumed_, this was her representing my position,
> >>>> since the video was addressed to me in a response; _not_ that I claimed
> >>>> it to actually be the case. Again I said I _assumed...... Furthermore,
> >>>> I'm not going to allow one person to drive me from TO, a newsgroup that
> >>>> I've participated in for years - more than a decade.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You identify no misunderstanding or misrepresentation by jillery.
> >>> You fail to acknowledge that your _assumption_ is factually incorrect..
> >>>
> >> Okay, what I assumed was wrong. She did not purposely or intentionally
> >> lay this on me.
> >>>
> >>> If in fact you don't claim that the speaker in the video was
> >>> representing your position, then you have zero basis for your
> >>> _assumption_, which is how you blew it out of proportion.
> >>>
> >> The video speaker? She don't know I exist: furthermore she was _not_
> >> referring to Intelligent Design.
> >
> >
> > The above contradicts your prior claims.
> >
> >
> >> So, admittedly I misunderstood Jill's
> >> intent. I was wrong.
> >>> Furthermore, nobody is trying to drive you from TO, and I am not the
> >>> only one who identifies your misunderstandings and misrepresentations..
> >>> You are not the victim here.
> >>> To the contrary, you are the one who repeatedly and falsely and
> >>> baselessly accuses me of bearing false witness against you.
> >>>
> >> I admitted I was mistaken regarding Jill's intent. For this I apologize.
> >
> >
> > Not good enough. You repeatedly ignored jillery's explicitly expressed
> > intent, accused jillery of bearing false witness against you, and of
> > trying to drive you from TO. Those aren't just mistakes, but are
> > explicit lies and deceptions.
> >
> >
> >>>> As to being inspired by pseudo skeptics, perhaps this has been the case.
> >>>> If there is common views between my views and opinions and these "pseudo
> >>>> skeptics", it's because of common observations of flaws and common
> >>>> observations of failures.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Once again, if your common views were based on valid observations,
> >>> then you could have derived similar conclusions from them. Instead,
> >>> your common views are based on common misrepresentations and
> >>> misunderstandings of those observations, which is best explained by
> >>> your exposure to their views. Not sure how even you *still* don't
> >>> understand this.
> >>>
> >> I realize they, G&E attempted to explain what they observed in the
> >> fossil record _within_ the_ _contest_ of evolution.
> >
> >
> > You continue to evade the point. If you claim 2+2=4, that's
> > consistent with arithmetic rules. OTOH if you claim evolution is
> > atheism, that's a claim contrary to any recognized definitions. When
> > you claim there are no transitional fossils, that's a claim contrary
> > to fact and isn't derived from actual observation.
> >
> >
> >>>> Not that I haven't read books primarily by
> >>>> pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and
> >>>> Dr Niles Eldredge.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The above is a good example of your misrepresentations and
> >>> misunderstandings. To say Gould and Eldredge are evolution
> >>> pseudoskeptics is completely contrary to what they have repeatedly and
> >>> publicly stated.
> >>>
> >> I was just being cynical here. I _knew_ both G&E were dedicated and
> >> convinced evolutionist. And they strongly opposed and resented the
> >> opposition using their words in support of their views. But they pointed
> >> out facts that were virtually ignored since Darwin. The prevailing
> >> absence of gradualism in the appearance of _most_ species and the
> >> unchanged (stasis) nature of these species during their tenure on earth
> >> which they explained by punctuated equilibrium.
> >
> >
> > NOTA says anything about evolution's flaws and failures. Your
> > repeated misrepresentations of G&E don't support your expressed lines
> > of reasoning.
> >
> You accuse me of misrepresentation G&E, but I quote them word for word,
> so I fail to understand how this misrepresents them?
> >
> >>>> If anyone were to seriously question the claims of
> >>>> evolutionist, such difficulties should be obvious. So, it followers
> >>>> that, there has to be acceptance without questioning in many cases: and
> >>>> this is an unscientific approach.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To the contrary, based on your posts, you have no idea what are the
> >>> claims of evolutionists, nor how to seriously question them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I realize that Gould and Eldredge were serious, dedicated and unwavering
> >>>> evolution who resented their opposition, skeptics who appealed to their
> >>>> works in support of their positions. But G & E were sincere and _honest_
> >>>> enough to draw attention to some of main shortcomings and flaws of
> >>>> modern evolution.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The one claim you mention from G&E is punctuated equilibrium. This is
> >>> neither a flaw nor a shortcoming of modern evolution.
> >>>
> >> Stasis was _not_ what was expected. In the two books, that I have on
> >> hand at this moment, "The Panda's Thumb" copyright: 1980 by Stephen J.
> >> Gould and another book entitled "Punctuated Equilibrium", written by
> >> Gould and copyright: 2007 by the President and fellows of Harvard
> >> University.
> >> In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that "in
> >> most species appear in suddenly in the fossil record with no
> >> intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
> >> [pg-180] "but punctuation may only record an absence of intermediary
> >> data" [pg 124] Punctuated Equilibrium.
> >>
> >> The reality of stasis in the fossil record was ignored, although it was
> >> brought to Darwin's attention stasis was ignored or seen by
> >> paleontologist as "no data for evolution". But Gould insisted that
> >> "Stasis is data" pg 20-26 Punctuated Equilibrium.
> >>
> >> It's quite understandable as to why stasis (no change) was ignored or
> >> seen as no data. But this is exactly what both ID proponents and
> >> scientific creationism would expect.
> >
> >
> > Even if the fossil record was consistent with what ID and scientific
> > creationism(?) expect, which it isn't, the fossil record is also
> > consistent with what paleontologists expect.
> >
> OF course, stasis, stability and no change is what ID would expect. But
> to the contrary while stasis was brought up to Darwin, it was ignored
> until except by E. Myer, and later stasis was revisited by G&E.
> You insist Punctuated
> > Equilibrium is contrary to evolution because you have a perverse
> > misunderstanding of what G&E and evolution say.
> >
> >
> >>> This has been explained to you many times by many posters. That's
> >>> what makes it a PRATT.
> >>>
> >> Please explain the abrupt appearance of most species in the rocks with
> >> no intermediate links in earlier strata followed by the no data
> >> nomenclature for stasis in the fossil record.
> >
> >
> > Short answer: You have no idea what qualifies as "intermediate links"
> > an "no data". If you really want a longer answer, refer to replies to
> > your previous posts, or even better, read some authoritative books on
> > the subject.
.......
> I've read books by Gould and Eldredge, what I've written is from the
> horse's mouth!

On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 10:33:13 PM UTC+1, Ron Dean wrote:
> jillery wrote:
> > On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:06:52 -0500, Ron Dean
> > <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> jillery wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:01:51 -0500, Ron Dean
> >>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> jillery wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:43:31 -0500, Ron Dean
> >>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> The main argument that I was taking issue was this. "If we descended
> >>>>> >from monkeys why are there still monkeys." The very fact that, she
> >>>>>> addressed this video in a response to me, right or wrong, I _assumed_
> >>>>>> she thought it represented my position - it never did, it's something
> >>>>>> that I've never said or posted.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> One more time: Nobody said or implied that was your position; not me,
> >>>>> not the person speaking in the video, and not the parties who made it.
> >>>>> To the contrary, I explicitly identified the PRATTs you have
> >>>>> expressed, and "why are there still monkeys" was not among them. In
> >>>>> other words, you made all that up, a lie you continue to repeat.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> However, this got blown totally out of
> >>>>>> proportion
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> YOU, Ron Dean, are the one who blew it out of proportion, and continue
> >>>>> to do so, just to avoid admitting you are inspired by pseudoskeptic
> >>>>> sources.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> and I'm accused of lying, dishonesty and deceit.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Apparently you want to leave a legacy of dishonesty, deception, and
> >>>>> incompetence. Not the choice I would have made, but suit yourself.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I cannot leave this misunderstanding and misrepresentation, by Jill. I
> >>>> said just above, I _assumed_, this was her representing my position,
> >>>> since the video was addressed to me in a response; _not_ that I claimed
> >>>> it to actually be the case. Again I said I _assumed...... Furthermore,
> >>>> I'm not going to allow one person to drive me from TO, a newsgroup that
> >>>> I've participated in for years - more than a decade.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You identify no misunderstanding or misrepresentation by jillery.
> >>> You fail to acknowledge that your _assumption_ is factually incorrect..
> >>>
> >> Okay, what I assumed was wrong. She did not purposely or intentionally
> >> lay this on me.
> >>>
> >>> If in fact you don't claim that the speaker in the video was
> >>> representing your position, then you have zero basis for your
> >>> _assumption_, which is how you blew it out of proportion.
> >>>
> >> The video speaker? She don't know I exist: furthermore she was _not_
> >> referring to Intelligent Design.
> >
> >
> > The above contradicts your prior claims.
> >
> >
> >> So, admittedly I misunderstood Jill's
> >> intent. I was wrong.
> >>> Furthermore, nobody is trying to drive you from TO, and I am not the
> >>> only one who identifies your misunderstandings and misrepresentations..
> >>> You are not the victim here.
> >>> To the contrary, you are the one who repeatedly and falsely and
> >>> baselessly accuses me of bearing false witness against you.
> >>>
> >> I admitted I was mistaken regarding Jill's intent. For this I apologize.
> >
> >
> > Not good enough. You repeatedly ignored jillery's explicitly expressed
> > intent, accused jillery of bearing false witness against you, and of
> > trying to drive you from TO. Those aren't just mistakes, but are
> > explicit lies and deceptions.
> >
> >
> >>>> As to being inspired by pseudo skeptics, perhaps this has been the case.
> >>>> If there is common views between my views and opinions and these "pseudo
> >>>> skeptics", it's because of common observations of flaws and common
> >>>> observations of failures.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Once again, if your common views were based on valid observations,
> >>> then you could have derived similar conclusions from them. Instead,
> >>> your common views are based on common misrepresentations and
> >>> misunderstandings of those observations, which is best explained by
> >>> your exposure to their views. Not sure how even you *still* don't
> >>> understand this.
> >>>
> >> I realize they, G&E attempted to explain what they observed in the
> >> fossil record _within_ the_ _contest_ of evolution.
> >
> >
> > You continue to evade the point. If you claim 2+2=4, that's
> > consistent with arithmetic rules. OTOH if you claim evolution is
> > atheism, that's a claim contrary to any recognized definitions. When
> > you claim there are no transitional fossils, that's a claim contrary
> > to fact and isn't derived from actual observation.
> >
> >
> >>>> Not that I haven't read books primarily by
> >>>> pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and
> >>>> Dr Niles Eldredge.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The above is a good example of your misrepresentations and
> >>> misunderstandings. To say Gould and Eldredge are evolution
> >>> pseudoskeptics is completely contrary to what they have repeatedly and
> >>> publicly stated.
> >>>
> >> I was just being cynical here. I _knew_ both G&E were dedicated and
> >> convinced evolutionist. And they strongly opposed and resented the
> >> opposition using their words in support of their views. But they pointed
> >> out facts that were virtually ignored since Darwin. The prevailing
> >> absence of gradualism in the appearance of _most_ species and the
> >> unchanged (stasis) nature of these species during their tenure on earth
> >> which they explained by punctuated equilibrium.
> >
> >
> > NOTA says anything about evolution's flaws and failures. Your
> > repeated misrepresentations of G&E don't support your expressed lines
> > of reasoning.
> >
> You accuse me of misrepresentation G&E, but I quote them word for word,
> so I fail to understand how this misrepresents them?

by quoting them out of context, and by ignoring their own clarifications
that they issued once they realised they some people intentionally
misrepresented their work

> >
> >>>> If anyone were to seriously question the claims of
> >>>> evolutionist, such difficulties should be obvious. So, it followers
> >>>> that, there has to be acceptance without questioning in many cases: and
> >>>> this is an unscientific approach.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> To the contrary, based on your posts, you have no idea what are the
> >>> claims of evolutionists, nor how to seriously question them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> I realize that Gould and Eldredge were serious, dedicated and unwavering
> >>>> evolution who resented their opposition, skeptics who appealed to their
> >>>> works in support of their positions. But G & E were sincere and _honest_
> >>>> enough to draw attention to some of main shortcomings and flaws of
> >>>> modern evolution.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The one claim you mention from G&E is punctuated equilibrium. This is
> >>> neither a flaw nor a shortcoming of modern evolution.
> >>>
> >> Stasis was _not_ what was expected. In the two books, that I have on
> >> hand at this moment, "The Panda's Thumb" copyright: 1980 by Stephen J.
> >> Gould and another book entitled "Punctuated Equilibrium", written by
> >> Gould and copyright: 2007 by the President and fellows of Harvard
> >> University.
> >> In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that "in
> >> most species appear in suddenly in the fossil record with no
> >> intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
> >> [pg-180] "but punctuation may only record an absence of intermediary
> >> data" [pg 124] Punctuated Equilibrium.
> >>
> >> The reality of stasis in the fossil record was ignored, although it was
> >> brought to Darwin's attention stasis was ignored or seen by
> >> paleontologist as "no data for evolution". But Gould insisted that
> >> "Stasis is data" pg 20-26 Punctuated Equilibrium.
> >>
> >> It's quite understandable as to why stasis (no change) was ignored or
> >> seen as no data. But this is exactly what both ID proponents and
> >> scientific creationism would expect.
> >
> >
> > Even if the fossil record was consistent with what ID and scientific
> > creationism(?) expect, which it isn't, the fossil record is also
> > consistent with what paleontologists expect.
> >
> OF course, stasis, stability and no change is what ID would expect.

Vincent Maycock wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:06:52 -0500, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that
>> "(In) most species appear (in) suddenly in the fossil record with no
>> intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
>> [pg-180]
>
> But those abruptly appearing species themselves often constitute
> intermediate forms between taxa above the species level.
>
But when these species leave the record they look much the same with
little or no change when they first appeared.

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 21:16:26 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:06:52 -0500, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that
>>> "(In) most species appear (in) suddenly in the fossil record with no
>>> intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
>>> [pg-180]
>>
>> But those abruptly appearing species themselves often constitute
>> intermediate forms between taxa above the species level.
>>
>But when these species leave the record they look much the same with
>little or no change when they first appeared.

But the *groups to which they belong* often change drastically as
static species appear and disappear within those taxa. The evolution
of the horse is an example of this phenomenon.

On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 16:29:31 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip stuff not commented>

>>>>> Not that I haven't read books primarily by
>>>>> pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and
>>>>> Dr Niles Eldredge.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above is a good example of your misrepresentations and
>>>> misunderstandings. To say Gould and Eldredge are evolution
>>>> pseudoskeptics is completely contrary to what they have repeatedly and
>>>> publicly stated.
>>>>
>>> I was just being cynical here. I _knew_ both G&E were dedicated and
>>> convinced evolutionist. And they strongly opposed and resented the
>>> opposition using their words in support of their views. But they pointed
>>> out facts that were virtually ignored since Darwin. The prevailing
>>> absence of gradualism in the appearance of _most_ species and the
>>> unchanged (stasis) nature of these species during their tenure on earth
>>> which they explained by punctuated equilibrium.
>>
>>
>> NOTA says anything about evolution's flaws and failures. Your
>> repeated misrepresentations of G&E don't support your expressed lines
>> of reasoning.
>>
>You accuse me of misrepresentation G&E, but I quote them word for word,
>so I fail to understand how this misrepresents them?

The words they published are not the issue. Instead, the issue is
what they meant by them. G&E themselves say that your expressed
understanding of their words misrepresents what they meant. Not sure
how even you still don't understand this.

>>>>> If anyone were to seriously question the claims of
>>>>> evolutionist, such difficulties should be obvious. So, it followers
>>>>> that, there has to be acceptance without questioning in many cases: and
>>>>> this is an unscientific approach.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To the contrary, based on your posts, you have no idea what are the
>>>> claims of evolutionists, nor how to seriously question them.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I realize that Gould and Eldredge were serious, dedicated and unwavering
>>>>> evolution who resented their opposition, skeptics who appealed to their
>>>>> works in support of their positions. But G & E were sincere and _honest_
>>>>> enough to draw attention to some of main shortcomings and flaws of
>>>>> modern evolution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The one claim you mention from G&E is punctuated equilibrium. This is
>>>> neither a flaw nor a shortcoming of modern evolution.
>>>>
>>> Stasis was _not_ what was expected. In the two books, that I have on
>>> hand at this moment, "The Panda's Thumb" copyright: 1980 by Stephen J.
>>> Gould and another book entitled "Punctuated Equilibrium", written by
>>> Gould and copyright: 2007 by the President and fellows of Harvard
>>> University.
>>> In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that "in
>>> most species appear in suddenly in the fossil record with no
>>> intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
>>> [pg-180] "but punctuation may only record an absence of intermediary
>>> data" [pg 124] Punctuated Equilibrium.
>>>
>>> The reality of stasis in the fossil record was ignored, although it was
>>> brought to Darwin's attention stasis was ignored or seen by
>>> paleontologist as "no data for evolution". But Gould insisted that
>>> "Stasis is data" pg 20-26 Punctuated Equilibrium.
>>>
>>> It's quite understandable as to why stasis (no change) was ignored or
>>> seen as no data. But this is exactly what both ID proponents and
>>> scientific creationism would expect.
>>
>>
>> Even if the fossil record was consistent with what ID and scientific
>> creationism(?) expect, which it isn't, the fossil record is also
>> consistent with what paleontologists expect.
> >
>OF course, stasis, stability and no change is what ID would expect.

Even if that is so, then you and other cdesign proponentsists are in
for a rude shock. The fossil record demonstrates abundant and often
abrupt change.

>But
>to the contrary while stasis was brought up to Darwin, it was ignored
>until except by E. Myer, and later stasis was revisited by G&E.

Once again, G&E say their stasis is but a variation in time of
standard evolution. There are zero cases of species that have
remained completely unchanged since their origins. Even the record of
so-called living fossils documents change.

>> You insist Punctuated
>> Equilibrium is contrary to evolution because you have a perverse
>> misunderstanding of what G&E and evolution say.
>>
>>
>>>> This has been explained to you many times by many posters. That's
>>>> what makes it a PRATT.
>>>>
>>> Please explain the abrupt appearance of most species in the rocks with
>>> no intermediate links in earlier strata followed by the no data
>>> nomenclature for stasis in the fossil record.
>>
>>
>> Short answer: You have no idea what qualifies as "intermediate links"
>> an "no data". If you really want a longer answer, refer to replies to
>> your previous posts, or even better, read some authoritative books on
>> the subject.
>>
>I've read books by Gould and Eldredge, what I've written is from the
>horse's mouth!

Once again, the words they published are not the issue. Instead, the
issue is what they meant by them. By analogy, it's as if you read the
Bible and conclude there should exist talking donkeys.

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

jillery wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 16:29:31 -0500, Ron Dean
> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> <snip stuff not commented>
>
>
>>>>>> Not that I haven't read books primarily by
>>>>>> pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and
>>>>>> Dr Niles Eldredge.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above is a good example of your misrepresentations and
>>>>> misunderstandings. To say Gould and Eldredge are evolution
>>>>> pseudoskeptics is completely contrary to what they have repeatedly and
>>>>> publicly stated.
>>>>>
>>>> I was just being cynical here. I _knew_ both G&E were dedicated and
>>>> convinced evolutionist. And they strongly opposed and resented the
>>>> opposition using their words in support of their views. But they pointed
>>>> out facts that were virtually ignored since Darwin. The prevailing
>>>> absence of gradualism in the appearance of _most_ species and the
>>>> unchanged (stasis) nature of these species during their tenure on earth
>>>> which they explained by punctuated equilibrium.
>>>
>>>
>>> NOTA says anything about evolution's flaws and failures. Your
>>> repeated misrepresentations of G&E don't support your expressed lines
>>> of reasoning.
>>>
>> You accuse me of misrepresentation G&E, but I quote them word for word,
>> so I fail to understand how this misrepresents them?
>
>
> The words they published are not the issue. Instead, the issue is
> what they meant by them.
>
Really! Is it you position that G&E were incapable of expressing what
they meant!
>
G&E themselves say that your expressed
> understanding of their words misrepresents what they meant. Not sure
> how even you still don't understand this. >
You're telling me, that I'm wrong to accept the words of G&E, because
they misrepresented, by their own words, what they meant! So, you're
saying I'm wrong to trust Gould and Eldredge.

>
>
>>>>>> If anyone were to seriously question the claims of
>>>>>> evolutionist, such difficulties should be obvious. So, it followers
>>>>>> that, there has to be acceptance without questioning in many cases: and
>>>>>> this is an unscientific approach.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To the contrary, based on your posts, you have no idea what are the
>>>>> claims of evolutionists, nor how to seriously question them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I realize that Gould and Eldredge were serious, dedicated and unwavering
>>>>>> evolution who resented their opposition, skeptics who appealed to their
>>>>>> works in support of their positions. But G & E were sincere and _honest_
>>>>>> enough to draw attention to some of main shortcomings and flaws of
>>>>>> modern evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The one claim you mention from G&E is punctuated equilibrium. This is
>>>>> neither a flaw nor a shortcoming of modern evolution.
>>>>>
>>>> Stasis was _not_ what was expected. In the two books, that I have on
>>>> hand at this moment, "The Panda's Thumb" copyright: 1980 by Stephen J.
>>>> Gould and another book entitled "Punctuated Equilibrium", written by
>>>> Gould and copyright: 2007 by the President and fellows of Harvard
>>>> University.
>>>> In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that "in
>>>> most species appear in suddenly in the fossil record with no
>>>> intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
>>>> [pg-180] "but punctuation may only record an absence of intermediary
>>>> data" [pg 124] Punctuated Equilibrium.
>>>>
>>>> The reality of stasis in the fossil record was ignored, although it was
>>>> brought to Darwin's attention stasis was ignored or seen by
>>>> paleontologist as "no data for evolution". But Gould insisted that
>>>> "Stasis is data" pg 20-26 Punctuated Equilibrium.
>>>>
>>>> It's quite understandable as to why stasis (no change) was ignored or
>>>> seen as no data. But this is exactly what both ID proponents and
>>>> scientific creationism would expect.
>>>
>>>
>>> Even if the fossil record was consistent with what ID and scientific
>>> creationism(?) expect, which it isn't, the fossil record is also
>>> consistent with what paleontologists expect.
>>>
>> OF course, stasis, stability and no change is what ID would expect.
>
>
> Even if that is so, then you and other cdesign proponentsists are in
> for a rude shock. The fossil record demonstrates abundant and often
> abrupt change.
>
>
>> But
>> to the contrary while stasis was brought up to Darwin, it was ignored
>> until except by E. Myer, and later stasis was revisited by G&E.
>
>
> Once again, G&E say their stasis is but a variation in time of
> standard evolution. There are zero cases of species that have
> remained completely unchanged since their origins. Even the record of
> so-called living fossils documents change.
>
>
>>> You insist Punctuated
>>> Equilibrium is contrary to evolution because you have a perverse
>>> misunderstanding of what G&E and evolution say.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> This has been explained to you many times by many posters. That's
>>>>> what makes it a PRATT.
>>>>>
>>>> Please explain the abrupt appearance of most species in the rocks with
>>>> no intermediate links in earlier strata followed by the no data
>>>> nomenclature for stasis in the fossil record.
>>>
>>>
>>> Short answer: You have no idea what qualifies as "intermediate links"
>>> an "no data". If you really want a longer answer, refer to replies to
>>> your previous posts, or even better, read some authoritative books on
>>> the subject.
>>>
>> I've read books by Gould and Eldredge, what I've written is from the
>> horse's mouth!
>
>
> Once again, the words they published are not the issue. Instead, the
> issue is what they meant by them. By analogy, it's as if you read the
> Bible and conclude there should exist talking donkeys.
>
> --
> To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
>

broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 4:33:13 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
>> jillery wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:06:52 -0500, Ron Dean
>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> jillery wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:01:51 -0500, Ron Dean
>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> jillery wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:43:31 -0500, Ron Dean
>>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The main argument that I was taking issue was this. "If we descended
>>>>>>> >from monkeys why are there still monkeys." The very fact that, she
>>>>>>>> addressed this video in a response to me, right or wrong, I _assumed_
>>>>>>>> she thought it represented my position - it never did, it's something
>>>>>>>> that I've never said or posted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One more time: Nobody said or implied that was your position; not me,
>>>>>>> not the person speaking in the video, and not the parties who made it.
>>>>>>> To the contrary, I explicitly identified the PRATTs you have
>>>>>>> expressed, and "why are there still monkeys" was not among them. In
>>>>>>> other words, you made all that up, a lie you continue to repeat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> However, this got blown totally out of
>>>>>>>> proportion
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> YOU, Ron Dean, are the one who blew it out of proportion, and continue
>>>>>>> to do so, just to avoid admitting you are inspired by pseudoskeptic
>>>>>>> sources.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and I'm accused of lying, dishonesty and deceit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently you want to leave a legacy of dishonesty, deception, and
>>>>>>> incompetence. Not the choice I would have made, but suit yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> I cannot leave this misunderstanding and misrepresentation, by Jill. I
>>>>>> said just above, I _assumed_, this was her representing my position,
>>>>>> since the video was addressed to me in a response; _not_ that I claimed
>>>>>> it to actually be the case. Again I said I _assumed...... Furthermore,
>>>>>> I'm not going to allow one person to drive me from TO, a newsgroup that
>>>>>> I've participated in for years - more than a decade.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You identify no misunderstanding or misrepresentation by jillery.
>>>>> You fail to acknowledge that your _assumption_ is factually incorrect.
>>>>>
>>>> Okay, what I assumed was wrong. She did not purposely or intentionally
>>>> lay this on me.
>>>>>
>>>>> If in fact you don't claim that the speaker in the video was
>>>>> representing your position, then you have zero basis for your
>>>>> _assumption_, which is how you blew it out of proportion.
>>>>>
>>>> The video speaker? She don't know I exist: furthermore she was _not_
>>>> referring to Intelligent Design.
>>>
>>>
>>> The above contradicts your prior claims.
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, admittedly I misunderstood Jill's
>>>> intent. I was wrong.
>>>>> Furthermore, nobody is trying to drive you from TO, and I am not the
>>>>> only one who identifies your misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
>>>>> You are not the victim here.
>>>>> To the contrary, you are the one who repeatedly and falsely and
>>>>> baselessly accuses me of bearing false witness against you.
>>>>>
>>>> I admitted I was mistaken regarding Jill's intent. For this I apologize.
>>>
>>>
>>> Not good enough. You repeatedly ignored jillery's explicitly expressed
>>> intent, accused jillery of bearing false witness against you, and of
>>> trying to drive you from TO. Those aren't just mistakes, but are
>>> explicit lies and deceptions.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> As to being inspired by pseudo skeptics, perhaps this has been the case.
>>>>>> If there is common views between my views and opinions and these "pseudo
>>>>>> skeptics", it's because of common observations of flaws and common
>>>>>> observations of failures.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, if your common views were based on valid observations,
>>>>> then you could have derived similar conclusions from them. Instead,
>>>>> your common views are based on common misrepresentations and
>>>>> misunderstandings of those observations, which is best explained by
>>>>> your exposure to their views. Not sure how even you *still* don't
>>>>> understand this.
>>>>>
>>>> I realize they, G&E attempted to explain what they observed in the
>>>> fossil record _within_ the_ _contest_ of evolution.
>>>
>>>
>>> You continue to evade the point. If you claim 2+2=4, that's
>>> consistent with arithmetic rules. OTOH if you claim evolution is
>>> atheism, that's a claim contrary to any recognized definitions. When
>>> you claim there are no transitional fossils, that's a claim contrary
>>> to fact and isn't derived from actual observation.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Not that I haven't read books primarily by
>>>>>> pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and
>>>>>> Dr Niles Eldredge.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The above is a good example of your misrepresentations and
>>>>> misunderstandings. To say Gould and Eldredge are evolution
>>>>> pseudoskeptics is completely contrary to what they have repeatedly and
>>>>> publicly stated.
>>>>>
>>>> I was just being cynical here. I _knew_ both G&E were dedicated and
>>>> convinced evolutionist. And they strongly opposed and resented the
>>>> opposition using their words in support of their views. But they pointed
>>>> out facts that were virtually ignored since Darwin. The prevailing
>>>> absence of gradualism in the appearance of _most_ species and the
>>>> unchanged (stasis) nature of these species during their tenure on earth
>>>> which they explained by punctuated equilibrium.
>>>
>>>
>>> NOTA says anything about evolution's flaws and failures. Your
>>> repeated misrepresentations of G&E don't support your expressed lines
>>> of reasoning.
>>>
>> You accuse me of misrepresentation G&E, but I quote them word for word,
>> so I fail to understand how this misrepresents them?
>>>
>>>>>> If anyone were to seriously question the claims of
>>>>>> evolutionist, such difficulties should be obvious. So, it followers
>>>>>> that, there has to be acceptance without questioning in many cases: and
>>>>>> this is an unscientific approach.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To the contrary, based on your posts, you have no idea what are the
>>>>> claims of evolutionists, nor how to seriously question them.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I realize that Gould and Eldredge were serious, dedicated and unwavering
>>>>>> evolution who resented their opposition, skeptics who appealed to their
>>>>>> works in support of their positions. But G & E were sincere and _honest_
>>>>>> enough to draw attention to some of main shortcomings and flaws of
>>>>>> modern evolution.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The one claim you mention from G&E is punctuated equilibrium. This is
>>>>> neither a flaw nor a shortcoming of modern evolution.
>>>>>
>>>> Stasis was _not_ what was expected. In the two books, that I have on
>>>> hand at this moment, "The Panda's Thumb" copyright: 1980 by Stephen J.
>>>> Gould and another book entitled "Punctuated Equilibrium", written by
>>>> Gould and copyright: 2007 by the President and fellows of Harvard
>>>> University.
>>>> In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that "in
>>>> most species appear in suddenly in the fossil record with no
>>>> intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
>>>> [pg-180] "but punctuation may only record an absence of intermediary
>>>> data" [pg 124] Punctuated Equilibrium.
>>>>
>>>> The reality of stasis in the fossil record was ignored, although it was
>>>> brought to Darwin's attention stasis was ignored or seen by
>>>> paleontologist as "no data for evolution". But Gould insisted that
>>>> "Stasis is data" pg 20-26 Punctuated Equilibrium.
>>>>
>>>> It's quite understandable as to why stasis (no change) was ignored or
>>>> seen as no data. But this is exactly what both ID proponents and
>>>> scientific creationism would expect.
>>>
>>>
>>> Even if the fossil record was consistent with what ID and scientific
>>> creationism(?) expect, which it isn't, the fossil record is also
>>> consistent with what paleontologists expect.
>>>
>> OF course, stasis, stability and no change is what ID would expect. But
>> to the contrary while stasis was brought up to Darwin, it was ignored
>> until except by E. Myer, and later stasis was revisited by G&E.
>> You insist Punctuated
>>> Equilibrium is contrary to evolution because you have a perverse
>>> misunderstanding of what G&E and evolution say.
>>>
>>>
>>>>> This has been explained to you many times by many posters. That's
>>>>> what makes it a PRATT.
>>>>>
>>>> Please explain the abrupt appearance of most species in the rocks with
>>>> no intermediate links in earlier strata followed by the no data
>>>> nomenclature for stasis in the fossil record.
>>>
>>>
>>> Short answer: You have no idea what qualifies as "intermediate links"
>>> an "no data". If you really want a longer answer, refer to replies to
>>> your previous posts, or even better, read some authoritative books on
>>> the subject.
> ......
>> I've read books by Gould and Eldredge, what I've written is from the
>> horse's mouth!
>
> I don't believe you. You give no evidence that you understand what G&E were talking about, and the citations you give are (what a strange coincidence) just those paragraphs that creationist websites always quote mine. I don't think you've read the books; you've just aped the arguments of anti-evolution websites. I thought that you faced consequences for bearing false witness.
>
I have on hand, at the moment two books by Gould. Entitled "The Pandas
Thumb" Copywright: 1980 by Stephen J. Gould and published by W.W. Norton
and Company, New York and London
Another Book written by S.J. Gould, published 2007 by The Belknap of
Harvard University Press
Cambridge, Massachusetts. I have another book by Gould and a couple by
Niles Eldredge. I purchased these books with my own hard earned funds,
so I have read each and every one of them
as well as other authors. BTW I've always loved reading and I've been an
avid reader, since I was a child.

On Sunday, February 18, 2024 at 8:48:14 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
> broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 17, 2024 at 4:33:13 PM UTC-5, Ron Dean wrote:
> >> jillery wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:06:52 -0500, Ron Dean
> >>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> jillery wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 12:01:51 -0500, Ron Dean
> >>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> jillery wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 02:43:31 -0500, Ron Dean
> >>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The main argument that I was taking issue was this. "If we descended
> >>>>>>> >from monkeys why are there still monkeys." The very fact that, she
> >>>>>>>> addressed this video in a response to me, right or wrong, I _assumed_
> >>>>>>>> she thought it represented my position - it never did, it's something
> >>>>>>>> that I've never said or posted.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> One more time: Nobody said or implied that was your position; not me,
> >>>>>>> not the person speaking in the video, and not the parties who made it.
> >>>>>>> To the contrary, I explicitly identified the PRATTs you have
> >>>>>>> expressed, and "why are there still monkeys" was not among them. In
> >>>>>>> other words, you made all that up, a lie you continue to repeat.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> However, this got blown totally out of
> >>>>>>>> proportion
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> YOU, Ron Dean, are the one who blew it out of proportion, and continue
> >>>>>>> to do so, just to avoid admitting you are inspired by pseudoskeptic
> >>>>>>> sources.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> and I'm accused of lying, dishonesty and deceit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Apparently you want to leave a legacy of dishonesty, deception, and
> >>>>>>> incompetence. Not the choice I would have made, but suit yourself..
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> I cannot leave this misunderstanding and misrepresentation, by Jill. I
> >>>>>> said just above, I _assumed_, this was her representing my position,
> >>>>>> since the video was addressed to me in a response; _not_ that I claimed
> >>>>>> it to actually be the case. Again I said I _assumed...... Furthermore,
> >>>>>> I'm not going to allow one person to drive me from TO, a newsgroup that
> >>>>>> I've participated in for years - more than a decade.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> You identify no misunderstanding or misrepresentation by jillery.
> >>>>> You fail to acknowledge that your _assumption_ is factually incorrect.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Okay, what I assumed was wrong. She did not purposely or intentionally
> >>>> lay this on me.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If in fact you don't claim that the speaker in the video was
> >>>>> representing your position, then you have zero basis for your
> >>>>> _assumption_, which is how you blew it out of proportion.
> >>>>>
> >>>> The video speaker? She don't know I exist: furthermore she was _not_
> >>>> referring to Intelligent Design.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The above contradicts your prior claims.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> So, admittedly I misunderstood Jill's
> >>>> intent. I was wrong.
> >>>>> Furthermore, nobody is trying to drive you from TO, and I am not the
> >>>>> only one who identifies your misunderstandings and misrepresentations.
> >>>>> You are not the victim here.
> >>>>> To the contrary, you are the one who repeatedly and falsely and
> >>>>> baselessly accuses me of bearing false witness against you.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I admitted I was mistaken regarding Jill's intent. For this I apologize.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Not good enough. You repeatedly ignored jillery's explicitly expressed
> >>> intent, accused jillery of bearing false witness against you, and of
> >>> trying to drive you from TO. Those aren't just mistakes, but are
> >>> explicit lies and deceptions.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> As to being inspired by pseudo skeptics, perhaps this has been the case.
> >>>>>> If there is common views between my views and opinions and these "pseudo
> >>>>>> skeptics", it's because of common observations of flaws and common
> >>>>>> observations of failures.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Once again, if your common views were based on valid observations,
> >>>>> then you could have derived similar conclusions from them. Instead,
> >>>>> your common views are based on common misrepresentations and
> >>>>> misunderstandings of those observations, which is best explained by
> >>>>> your exposure to their views. Not sure how even you *still* don't
> >>>>> understand this.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I realize they, G&E attempted to explain what they observed in the
> >>>> fossil record _within_ the_ _contest_ of evolution.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> You continue to evade the point. If you claim 2+2=4, that's
> >>> consistent with arithmetic rules. OTOH if you claim evolution is
> >>> atheism, that's a claim contrary to any recognized definitions. When
> >>> you claim there are no transitional fossils, that's a claim contrary
> >>> to fact and isn't derived from actual observation.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>> Not that I haven't read books primarily by
> >>>>>> pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and
> >>>>>> Dr Niles Eldredge.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The above is a good example of your misrepresentations and
> >>>>> misunderstandings. To say Gould and Eldredge are evolution
> >>>>> pseudoskeptics is completely contrary to what they have repeatedly and
> >>>>> publicly stated.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I was just being cynical here. I _knew_ both G&E were dedicated and
> >>>> convinced evolutionist. And they strongly opposed and resented the
> >>>> opposition using their words in support of their views. But they pointed
> >>>> out facts that were virtually ignored since Darwin. The prevailing
> >>>> absence of gradualism in the appearance of _most_ species and the
> >>>> unchanged (stasis) nature of these species during their tenure on earth
> >>>> which they explained by punctuated equilibrium.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> NOTA says anything about evolution's flaws and failures. Your
> >>> repeated misrepresentations of G&E don't support your expressed lines
> >>> of reasoning.
> >>>
> >> You accuse me of misrepresentation G&E, but I quote them word for word,
> >> so I fail to understand how this misrepresents them?
> >>>
> >>>>>> If anyone were to seriously question the claims of
> >>>>>> evolutionist, such difficulties should be obvious. So, it followers
> >>>>>> that, there has to be acceptance without questioning in many cases: and
> >>>>>> this is an unscientific approach.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To the contrary, based on your posts, you have no idea what are the
> >>>>> claims of evolutionists, nor how to seriously question them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I realize that Gould and Eldredge were serious, dedicated and unwavering
> >>>>>> evolution who resented their opposition, skeptics who appealed to their
> >>>>>> works in support of their positions. But G & E were sincere and _honest_
> >>>>>> enough to draw attention to some of main shortcomings and flaws of
> >>>>>> modern evolution.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The one claim you mention from G&E is punctuated equilibrium. This is
> >>>>> neither a flaw nor a shortcoming of modern evolution.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Stasis was _not_ what was expected. In the two books, that I have on
> >>>> hand at this moment, "The Panda's Thumb" copyright: 1980 by Stephen J.
> >>>> Gould and another book entitled "Punctuated Equilibrium", written by
> >>>> Gould and copyright: 2007 by the President and fellows of Harvard
> >>>> University.
> >>>> In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that "in
> >>>> most species appear in suddenly in the fossil record with no
> >>>> intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
> >>>> [pg-180] "but punctuation may only record an absence of intermediary
> >>>> data" [pg 124] Punctuated Equilibrium.
> >>>>
> >>>> The reality of stasis in the fossil record was ignored, although it was
> >>>> brought to Darwin's attention stasis was ignored or seen by
> >>>> paleontologist as "no data for evolution". But Gould insisted that
> >>>> "Stasis is data" pg 20-26 Punctuated Equilibrium.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's quite understandable as to why stasis (no change) was ignored or
> >>>> seen as no data. But this is exactly what both ID proponents and
> >>>> scientific creationism would expect.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Even if the fossil record was consistent with what ID and scientific
> >>> creationism(?) expect, which it isn't, the fossil record is also
> >>> consistent with what paleontologists expect.
> >>>
> >> OF course, stasis, stability and no change is what ID would expect. But
> >> to the contrary while stasis was brought up to Darwin, it was ignored
> >> until except by E. Myer, and later stasis was revisited by G&E.
> >> You insist Punctuated
> >>> Equilibrium is contrary to evolution because you have a perverse
> >>> misunderstanding of what G&E and evolution say.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> This has been explained to you many times by many posters. That's
> >>>>> what makes it a PRATT.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Please explain the abrupt appearance of most species in the rocks with
> >>>> no intermediate links in earlier strata followed by the no data
> >>>> nomenclature for stasis in the fossil record.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Short answer: You have no idea what qualifies as "intermediate links"
> >>> an "no data". If you really want a longer answer, refer to replies to
> >>> your previous posts, or even better, read some authoritative books on
> >>> the subject.
> > ......
> >> I've read books by Gould and Eldredge, what I've written is from the
> >> horse's mouth!
> >
> > I don't believe you. You give no evidence that you understand what G&E were talking about, and the citations you give are (what a strange coincidence) just those paragraphs that creationist websites always quote mine. I don't think you've read the books; you've just aped the arguments of anti-evolution websites. I thought that you faced consequences for bearing false witness.
> >
> I have on hand, at the moment two books by Gould. Entitled "The Pandas
> Thumb" Copywright: 1980 by Stephen J. Gould and published by W.W. Norton
> and Company, New York and London
> Another Book written by S.J. Gould, published 2007 by The Belknap of
> Harvard University Press
> Cambridge, Massachusetts. I have another book by Gould and a couple by
> Niles Eldredge. I purchased these books with my own hard earned funds,
> so I have read each and every one of them
> as well as other authors. BTW I've always loved reading and I've been an
> avid reader, since I was a child.
>
> So, I don't have to quote mine, nor do I. These sources I've mentioned
> are available to other people including you. But believing what you want
> to believe and searching only for evidence to back up what you choose to
> believe is pushing yourself into being brainwashed. That's exactly what
> your paradigm does. While searching for supportive evidence, your brain
> _denies_ the _reality_ of conflicting evidences insisting there is none:
> or it searches for reasons designed to explain away whatever conflicting
> evidence that you come across in your path.
> I've been there. In my youth during my six years at the University I
> became a dedicated, determined believer in evolution. I don't think I
> ever was an atheist, but I questioned and doubted everything I was
> raised to be and to believe by my parents. But on a challenge by a
> friend, I reluctantly began examining independently _for_ myself_
> evidence contrary to evolution.

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 19:50:47 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 16:29:31 -0500, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> <snip stuff not commented>
>>
>>
>>>>>>> Not that I haven't read books primarily by
>>>>>>> pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and
>>>>>>> Dr Niles Eldredge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The above is a good example of your misrepresentations and
>>>>>> misunderstandings. To say Gould and Eldredge are evolution
>>>>>> pseudoskeptics is completely contrary to what they have repeatedly and
>>>>>> publicly stated.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I was just being cynical here. I _knew_ both G&E were dedicated and
>>>>> convinced evolutionist. And they strongly opposed and resented the
>>>>> opposition using their words in support of their views. But they pointed
>>>>> out facts that were virtually ignored since Darwin. The prevailing
>>>>> absence of gradualism in the appearance of _most_ species and the
>>>>> unchanged (stasis) nature of these species during their tenure on earth
>>>>> which they explained by punctuated equilibrium.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NOTA says anything about evolution's flaws and failures. Your
>>>> repeated misrepresentations of G&E don't support your expressed lines
>>>> of reasoning.
>>>>
>>> You accuse me of misrepresentation G&E, but I quote them word for word,
>>> so I fail to understand how this misrepresents them?
>>
>>
>> The words they published are not the issue. Instead, the issue is
>> what they meant by them.
> >
>Really! Is it you position that G&E were incapable of expressing what
>they meant!

Since you asked, no. What part of "your repeated misrepresentations"
don't you understand?

<snip stuff not commented>

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

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 20:47:30 -0500
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

[] But believing what you want
> to believe and searching only for evidence to back up what you choose to
> believe is pushing yourself into being brainwashed.
[]

Nicely put.

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

On Monday, February 19, 2024 at 12:53:14 AM UTC, Ron Dean wrote:
> jillery wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Feb 2024 16:29:31 -0500, Ron Dean
> > <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > <snip stuff not commented>
> >
> >
> >>>>>> Not that I haven't read books primarily by
> >>>>>> pseudo skeptic Dr. Denton and pseudo skeptics Dr. Stephen J. Gould and
> >>>>>> Dr Niles Eldredge.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The above is a good example of your misrepresentations and
> >>>>> misunderstandings. To say Gould and Eldredge are evolution
> >>>>> pseudoskeptics is completely contrary to what they have repeatedly and
> >>>>> publicly stated.
> >>>>>
> >>>> I was just being cynical here. I _knew_ both G&E were dedicated and
> >>>> convinced evolutionist. And they strongly opposed and resented the
> >>>> opposition using their words in support of their views. But they pointed
> >>>> out facts that were virtually ignored since Darwin. The prevailing
> >>>> absence of gradualism in the appearance of _most_ species and the
> >>>> unchanged (stasis) nature of these species during their tenure on earth
> >>>> which they explained by punctuated equilibrium.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> NOTA says anything about evolution's flaws and failures. Your
> >>> repeated misrepresentations of G&E don't support your expressed lines
> >>> of reasoning.
> >>>
> >> You accuse me of misrepresentation G&E, but I quote them word for word,
> >> so I fail to understand how this misrepresents them?
> >
> >
> > The words they published are not the issue. Instead, the issue is
> > what they meant by them.
> >
> Really! Is it you position that G&E were incapable of expressing what
> they meant!

It is impossible, for any author, to prevent misreadings of their work. Even
in mathematics, which leaves the least room for diverging interpretation,
the author has to make assumptions about the ability and knowledge of their
readers. If these are misplaced, misunderstandings are likely. That's a risk every
author has, but in the sciences, it is particularly acute for those who write popular
texts for lay audiences. They inevitably have to simplify things, or use
metaphors and similes, and there will always be some numbnut who mistakes
the map for the territory

> >
> G&E themselves say that your expressed
> > understanding of their words misrepresents what they meant. Not sure
> > how even you still don't understand this. >
> You're telling me, that I'm wrong to accept the words of G&E, because
> they misrepresented, by their own words, what they meant! So, you're
> saying I'm wrong to trust Gould and Eldredge.
> >

Only in the sense as telling someone who quotes Psalm 14:1 to claim that the Bible
says there is no good that he is not really "trusting the bible" but gets the text wrong.

Gould and Eldredge have repeatedly and explicitly protested against the
misreading of their work that you repeat.

> >
> >>>>>> If anyone were to seriously question the claims of
> >>>>>> evolutionist, such difficulties should be obvious. So, it followers
> >>>>>> that, there has to be acceptance without questioning in many cases: and
> >>>>>> this is an unscientific approach.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To the contrary, based on your posts, you have no idea what are the
> >>>>> claims of evolutionists, nor how to seriously question them.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I realize that Gould and Eldredge were serious, dedicated and unwavering
> >>>>>> evolution who resented their opposition, skeptics who appealed to their
> >>>>>> works in support of their positions. But G & E were sincere and _honest_
> >>>>>> enough to draw attention to some of main shortcomings and flaws of
> >>>>>> modern evolution.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The one claim you mention from G&E is punctuated equilibrium. This is
> >>>>> neither a flaw nor a shortcoming of modern evolution.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Stasis was _not_ what was expected. In the two books, that I have on
> >>>> hand at this moment, "The Panda's Thumb" copyright: 1980 by Stephen J.
> >>>> Gould and another book entitled "Punctuated Equilibrium", written by
> >>>> Gould and copyright: 2007 by the President and fellows of Harvard
> >>>> University.
> >>>> In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that "in
> >>>> most species appear in suddenly in the fossil record with no
> >>>> intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
> >>>> [pg-180] "but punctuation may only record an absence of intermediary
> >>>> data" [pg 124] Punctuated Equilibrium.
> >>>>
> >>>> The reality of stasis in the fossil record was ignored, although it was
> >>>> brought to Darwin's attention stasis was ignored or seen by
> >>>> paleontologist as "no data for evolution". But Gould insisted that
> >>>> "Stasis is data" pg 20-26 Punctuated Equilibrium.
> >>>>
> >>>> It's quite understandable as to why stasis (no change) was ignored or
> >>>> seen as no data. But this is exactly what both ID proponents and
> >>>> scientific creationism would expect.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Even if the fossil record was consistent with what ID and scientific
> >>> creationism(?) expect, which it isn't, the fossil record is also
> >>> consistent with what paleontologists expect.
> >>>
> >> OF course, stasis, stability and no change is what ID would expect.
> >
> >
> > Even if that is so, then you and other cdesign proponentsists are in
> > for a rude shock. The fossil record demonstrates abundant and often
> > abrupt change.
> >
> >
> >> But
> >> to the contrary while stasis was brought up to Darwin, it was ignored
> >> until except by E. Myer, and later stasis was revisited by G&E.
> >
> >
> > Once again, G&E say their stasis is but a variation in time of
> > standard evolution. There are zero cases of species that have
> > remained completely unchanged since their origins. Even the record of
> > so-called living fossils documents change.
> >
> >
> >>> You insist Punctuated
> >>> Equilibrium is contrary to evolution because you have a perverse
> >>> misunderstanding of what G&E and evolution say.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>> This has been explained to you many times by many posters. That's
> >>>>> what makes it a PRATT.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Please explain the abrupt appearance of most species in the rocks with
> >>>> no intermediate links in earlier strata followed by the no data
> >>>> nomenclature for stasis in the fossil record.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Short answer: You have no idea what qualifies as "intermediate links"
> >>> an "no data". If you really want a longer answer, refer to replies to
> >>> your previous posts, or even better, read some authoritative books on
> >>> the subject.
> >>>
> >> I've read books by Gould and Eldredge, what I've written is from the
> >> horse's mouth!
> >
> >
> > Once again, the words they published are not the issue. Instead, the
> > issue is what they meant by them. By analogy, it's as if you read the
> > Bible and conclude there should exist talking donkeys.
> >
> > --
> > To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
> >

On Sun, 18 Feb 2024 19:50:47 -0500, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

>jillery wrote:

<snip for focus>
>> The words they published are not the issue. Instead, the issue is
>> what they meant by them.
> >
>Really! Is it you position that G&E were incapable of expressing what
>they meant!

You seem unable to consider the possibility that you might be
misunderstanding them even though you have had to admit to
misunderstanding previous issues around evolution.

[...]

On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 09:43:05 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On 2024-02-16 3:51 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 20:40:08 -0600, DB Cates <cates_db@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2024-02-15 4:30 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 04:20:26 -0800 (PST), Burkhard
>>>> <b.schafer@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, February 13, 2024 at 9:43:08?AM UTC, Martin Harran wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 20:53:30 -0500, Ron Dean
>>>>>> <rondean...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ? Tibet wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> Basically theory of
>>>>>>>> evolution does not explain:
>>>>>>>> * what is good or evil, moral or immoral,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree, but it does reduce human beings to _animal_ status: since,
>>>>>>> we're nothing, but animals, no better than other animals and genetically
>>>>>>> different by only 1% from chimps.
>>>>>> The "status" that you refer to seems to be based on your personal
>>>>>> difficulty in coping with the idea of there being no significant
>>>>>> *biological* difference between humans and other animals. It's a
>>>>>> foolish point to get hung up on. The *biological* difference between
>>>>>> humans and other animals is irrelevant, the significant difference
>>>>>> lies in *intellect*.
>>>>>
>>>>> What makes us human is obviously the ability to identify all traffic lights
>>>>> in a collection of photos
>>>>
>>>> Do I detect the same frustration as myself with some of these
>>>> captchas, especially those with items that are met with in everyday
>>>> life *in the USA*?
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some people will argue that intellect is also a product of evolution
>>>>>> but that is pure speculation at this point in time as there is no
>>>>>> direct evidence to show an evolutionary path for the development of
>>>>>> the unique aspects of human intellect.
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be quite a radical claim. It seems obvious
>>>>
>>>> "Seems obvious" sounds a bit like Ron Dean and Intelligent Design.
>>>>
>>>>> that our
>>>>> intelligence requires a biological substratum - hence the impact
>>>>> of brain damage, drugs etc on intelligence. So you'd have to argue
>>>>> that our brain is not evolved. And you'd also have to discard the
>>>>> observation of intelligent behaviour by the other apes
>>>>
>>>> You seem to be reducing *intellect* to *intelligent* but I think there
>>>> is a significant difference - by intellect, I mean the ability to
>>>> reason, to figure things out, to imagine things that don't exist as
>>>> opposed to motor functions which have to do with things like muscle
>>>> movement and memory.
>>>>
>>>> This difference is illustrated in the work of Wilder Penfield who is
>>>> regarded as the pioneer in surgery for epilepsy and developed the
>>>> process of carrying out surgery on fully alert patients which allowed
>>>> him to observe and record the effect of stimulating various parts of
>>>> the brain. In the many thousands of stimulations that he carried out,
>>>> he found that all the stimulations were concrete things - moving an
>>>> arm or feeling a tingling or sometimes a concrete memory - but there
>>>> was never any abstract thought stimulated. He found the same in
>>>> observations of patients suffering epileptic seizures - it was always
>>>> motor functions that were affected, never the ability to reason. His
>>>> experience turned Penfield from a convinced materialist at the start
>>>> of his career to a convinced dualist at the end of it.
>>>>
>>> This sounds very much like Michael Egnor's take on Penfield. The
>>> Wikipedia article is not quite so ,,,umm... biased.
>>> Or are hallucinations and feelings of Deja Vu 'concrete?
>>
>> Whilst Wikipedia is generally reliable, it is not an authoritative
>> source. I prefer to check original material. From Penfield himself:
>>
>> ===============================
>> "For my own part, after years of striving to explain the
>> mind on the basis of brain-action alone, I have come to
>> the conclusion that it is simpler (and far easier to be
>> logical) if one adopts the hypothesis that our being does
>> consist of two fundamental elements. If that is true, it
>> could still be true that energy required comes to the mind
>> during waking hours through the highest brain-mechanism.
>>
>> Because it seems to me certain that it will always be
>> quite impossible to explain the mind on the basis of
>> neuronal action within the brain, and because it seems
>> to me that the mind develops and matures independently
>> throughout an individual's life as though it were a continuing
>> element, and because a computer (which the
>> brain is) must be programmed and operated by an
>> agency capable of independent understanding, I am
>> forced to choose the proposition that our being is to be
>> explained on the basis of two fundamental elements. This,
>> to my mind, offers the greatest likelihood of leading us
>> to the final understanding toward which so many stalwart
>> scientists strive."
>>
>> [Penfield, W. (2015) Mystery of the Mind: A Critical Study of
>> Consciousness and the Human Brain, Princeton University Press, p80
>> (Originally published 1975)]
>> ================================
>>
>> My own summary does to some extent reflect the views of Michael Egnor
>> but I would have hoped that at this stage you might have given me some
>> credit for not taking at face value anything written by an ID
>> proponent.
>
>I confess I was surprised at how closely your comments followed Egnor's.

As I suggested earlier, not everything written byh ID'ers is rubbish,
especially in an area where they are professionally qualified -
Michael Egnor is a pediatric neurosurgeon.

>In particular thew claim that his brain stimulations only ever caused
>'concrete' results, avoiding mention in the examples of those responses
>that were somewhat less 'concrete'. How many of those stimulations were
>reported to have no effect and how would one report having 'an abstract
>thought'?
>Considering epilepsy, how would one know that a 'silent seizure' (one
>having no physical manifestation; most often undetected) wasn't
>affecting reasoning?

I don't know enough about the technical detail of Penfield's work to
comment but I have not seen anyone raising questions about it which I
would expect if there were such questions.

>I have not read any of Penfield's work directly so thank you for that
>quote. I indicates to me that his opinions on the subject were much more
>circumspect than your original statement indicated.

Penfield has said the same thing in other places so I think my
description of him as a 'convinced ' dualist was fair enough.
Incidentally, Egnor describes him as a 'passionate' dualist which I do
not think is warranted and an example of what I described as Egnor's
over-enthusiasm.

> I am surprised at
>the strength of his comparison of the brain to a computer. He *equated*
>them and while the brain has many similarities to a computer it really
>ain't one. So, to me, his conclusions based on this are somewhat suspect.

Do you think it's fair to question his conclusions when you haven't
read the work that led to them?

[…]

On 2/17/24 1:29 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> jillery wrote:
>> [...]
>> Even if the fossil record was consistent with what ID and scientific
>> creationism(?) expect, which it isn't, the fossil record is also
>> consistent with what paleontologists expect.
>
> OF course, stasis, stability and no change is what ID would expect.

So we are forced to conclude that ID is wrong, because the fossil record
shows extensive change and only small and/or brief segments of stasis.

> But
> to the contrary while stasis was brought up to Darwin, it was ignored
> until except by E. Myer, and later stasis was revisited by G&E.

Possibly because scientists tend to concentrate on puzzles and the
unexpected, not on something that already fits the theory very well.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

On 2/17/24 6:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> Vincent Maycock wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:06:52 -0500, Ron Dean
>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that
>>> "(In) most species appear (in) suddenly in the fossil record with no
>>> intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
>>> [pg-180]
>>
>> But those abruptly appearing species themselves often constitute
>> intermediate forms between taxa above the species level.
>>
> But when these species leave the record they look much the same with
> little or no change when they first appeared.

Duh. If they showed significant change, they would be a different
species, and so they would not count as the species in question.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 2/17/24 6:16 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> Vincent Maycock wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Feb 2024 20:06:52 -0500, Ron Dean
>>> <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> In Pandas Thumb although written 40+ years Gould points out that
>>>> "(In) most species appear (in) suddenly in the fossil record with no
>>>> intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region.
>>>> [pg-180]
>>>
>>> But those abruptly appearing species themselves often constitute
>>> intermediate forms between taxa above the species level.
>>>
>> But when these species leave the record they look much the same with
>> little or no change when they first appeared.
>
> Duh. If they showed significant change, they would be a different
> species, and so they would not count as the species in question.
>
I'm sorry, Mark my sister passed 6 days ago and I'm just not up to this
right now.