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

On Thu, 13 Jun 2024 15:27:59 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

On Wed, 12 Jun 2024 17:16:53 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
 

jillery wrote:

 
<snip uncommented text>
 

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.
>

The problem is we observe the results of evolutionary, and rarely if
ever the actual evolution.

 
 
The problem is your comments above are incoherent gibberish. Add the
above to your previous nonsense, that "stasis is the exact opposite of
gradual change", and all you manage to prove is you have no idea what
you're talking about.
 

It's becoming increasingly more and more obvious, you do not have the
capability to comprehend.

You're absolutely correct.  I freely admit I don't comprehend
incoherent gibberish.  Bad jillery, bad, bad, bad.  So very bad.

So to review:

"stasis is the exact opposite of gradual change"
"we observe the results of evolutionary, and rarely if ever the actual
evolution."

I suppose one way to win an argument is to post nonsense, and then
expect me to figure out what you meant.

What's
observed is captured in a schematic demonstrating _evolution_ of a
daughter species by a dotted line and stasis is depicted as a wavy line
that ends up with the daughter line looking quite the same at the end as
at the beginning.
>
https://www.digitalatlasofancientlife.org/learn/evolution/punctuated-equilibrium-and-stasis/

 
 
It's no surprise you don't understand your own cites.  Do everybody a
favor and try to explain how your cite above is evidence against
Darwinian evolution and for ID.
 

You failed to comprehend the fact that the wavy line to the _right_ of
the parent was the daughter.
The dotted lines represented the supposed evolution.

Are you now claiming that no evolution occurred?  Or are you claiming
that daughters are purposefully designed?  Exactly what is your
objection here?  You don't say.  Why is that?

To review, your cite distinguishes between phyletic gradualism and
punctuated equilibrium.  Contrary to what you say, wavy lines vs
dotted lines are used *only* to emphasize that difference.

The difference is based on *a pattern of change*, ie how much occurred
in a given period of time. In some cases, change happened relatively
rapidly followed by relatively little change.  In other cases, change
happened relatively slowly and relatively evenly. 

The key word above is "relatively".  While both models recognize that
change occurred, the amount of change, and the period of time, *are
completely arbitrary*.  An example of phyletic gradualism can be
viewed as punctuated equilibrium merely by focusing on a shorter
period of time, which would necessarily ignore any static interval.
Similarly, an example of punctuated equilibrium can be viewed as
phyletic gradualism merely by focusing on a longer period of time,
which would necessarily average more changes into any static
intervals.

Despite the many times over many years you have raised Gould's
punctuated equilibrium, you have never *explained* how you think
punctuated equilibrium is supposed to be evidence for Intelligent
Design, except to baldly assert that it does. Until you do explain,
your regular references to punctuated equilibrium are nothing more
than mindless spam.

   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.
>

I do recognize and acknowledge myself as intelligent design proponent.

 
 
And the difference between "intelligent design proponent" and "cdesign
proponentsist" is... ???  You don't say.  Why is that?
 

It's obvious cdesign is a deliberate, purposeful and utterly dishonest
false representation!

I agree.  It was intelligent design proponents who dishonestly changed
a Creationist biology textbook into an Intelligent Design one.  I know
you know this.

As I see it, design is obvious and real, not apparent or an illusion as
is described by Richard Dawkins.
Dawkins defines "biology as the study of complicated things that give
the appearance of having been designed for a purpose’, he believes that
appearances are deceiving.  Biological things are designoid: ‘Designoid
objects that look designed, so much so that some people – probably,
alas, most people – think that they are designed.  These people are
wrong,  the true explanation – Darwinian natural selection – is very
different."
>
Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins: “Biology is the study of
complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for
a purpose.” {Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 1}
  Dawkins uses the word 'overwhelming' in his description of "apparent
and illusionary design." “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker,
blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no
purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection
overwhelmingly impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”
{Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 1996, p. 21.}
>
So, it's obvious that Dawkins a a professed atheist has no alternative,
but to explain away deliberate, purposeful, observed design, then he
turns to natural processes as a means of defense of his atheist bias by
explaining away what could very well be observed as deliberate
purposeful design to anyone who not committed.
>
>
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2597924

 
 
Once again, you jump from an incoherent ramble about Gould and PE to
an incoherent ramble about Dawkins and atheism, without even trying to
explain how anything you wrote disproves evolution or supports ID. Why
is that?
>

You are incapable of understand just plain English, so it obvious you
engage in personal ranting insults, slander and character assassination
order to obscure or hide your own failures and mental shortcomings. I'm
wasting my time with you, because of your inabilities.

You should try using *coherent* English, if only for the novelty of
the experience. 

And stop lying about me; it makes you sound desperate.

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