Re: Wistar Symposium "Mathematical Challenge to Neo-Darwinism".

On Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:18:31 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Sat, 8 Jun 2024 16:38:04 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
 

jillery wrote:

On Fri, 7 Jun 2024 11:24:58 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>

jillery wrote:

On Wed, 5 Jun 2024 12:42:57 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
>

How many have you read pointing out the flaws
in evolutionary theory?

>
>
The problem with that question is you and other cdesign proponentsists
have a very flawed concept of what qualifies as flaws in evolutionary
theory.
>

IOW - None!

>
>
IOW - when someone says "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change", it shows they have no idea what the words even mean,
nevermind what they're talking about, nevermind what the people they
quote are talking about.
>

Then please explain precisely what Gould meant by stasis and equilibrium.

>
>
Why sure, just as soon as you explain precisely what you meant by
stasis and equilibrium.
>

I accepted Gould's definition, stasis means stability. He points out
that historically when paleontologist were faced with stasis they saw it
as "no data".

 
 
You evaded the question.  Since you claim to speak for Gould, you need
to cite where Gould said "stasis is the exact opposite of gradual
change".  Anything less is evidence you know you don't know what
you're talking about.
 
Do everybody a favor and think for a few minutes what your words mean,
and you will recognize that your statement is logical nonsense.  Gould
would never have said such a thing. Both "stasis" and "gradual" mean
the *same thing*; relatively little morphological change over
relatively long periods of time.  Neither mean no change ever.
 
 

But as I recall, the scientist on Darwin's day pointed this out to
Darwin, so he was aware of this. But it was soon overlooked and ignored
by scientist while searching for evidence to support Darwin's theory. I
think that explains the "no data".

 
 
Even if your recollection above is factually correct, it still doesn't
back up your claims; that stasis is the opposite of gradual change;
that Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium aka PE is evidence against
Darwinian evolution; and evidence for ID.
 
 

Equilibrium was preceded and followed stasis. So punctuated equilibrium,
as I understood Dr Gould's view, he saw periods of stasis followed by
punctuated (rapid appearance of new species (geologically speaking)),
then long spans of stasis (little or no change) then sudden disappearance.

 
 
Once again, what you wrote above is completely ass-backwards.  Stasis
means equilibrium.  According to PE, *rapid change* is preceded and
followed by *stasis*.
>

I know this. I unintentionally left out the word "punctuated"

Neither the above correction nor the one you provided Harshman helps
your claims.  You would be better off to just admit you have no idea
what you're talking about.

But your confusion above isn't even the problem here.  Once again, it
*doesn't matter* to Darwinian evolution how fast or slow morphological
change takes place.  In all cases it's still evolution.  ID doesn't
even inform PE.  I know you know this.
 
 

IOW stasis marked as an "x species" which was _punctuated_ (evolved
rapidly) into a new stable "y species".  He calls punctuated which is
not observe as _peripherical_isolatiates_.
If I wrong then please explain why.

 
 
Once again, your line of reasoning is based on your asinine
assumptions that "rapid" and "gradual" specify a particular amount of
change and a particular period of time.
>

No! Not particular: gradual change over time is evolutionary change over
some time factor.
Rapid Change could imply change over a comparatively short period time -
say 100,000 years.

Rapid change *could* imply lots of things.  The point is, regardless
of the time period, it's still evolution.  Not sure how even you still
don't understand this.

 They do not.  You would know

this if you read anything without your cdesign proponentsists glasses.
>

The views I express are mine, not those of cdesign proponents.

Based on your posts, you're unambiguously a cdesign proponentist.  Not
sure how even you still don't recognize this.

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