Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Southstar's thread

Pages: (13) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,10:30    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,08:51) [quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 24 2011,08:17][/quote] Hi Ogre, I was reading the forester thrashing and noticed that you mentioned that you said: "I would be happy to educate you on how mutations and natural selection can create new SPECIES and in at least one known case, a new genus". Can you give me the link to the genus study? Could really use it on my front Marty Here you go.   http://agris.fao.org/agris-s....97B6240 -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Southstar Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,11:01    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,10:26) Quote Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap It's always amusing to ask them why they believe this paper, that happens (presumably) to support their point of view, is right yet all the others (many many more) that don't support their point of view are wrong. Obviously you can prove anything by cherry picking but it's always amusing to watch them squirm as they try to justify their why one beats 1000, despite them having only read the one. Hmm i'm not sure that would work cause they could always say: well even darwin was alone to uphold evolution, so this fine author is just the begining of a new wave of enlightment. There's always got to be a first... -------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,11:29    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,11:01)   Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,10:26)     Quote Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap It's always amusing to ask them why they believe this paper, that happens (presumably) to support their point of view, is right yet all the others (many many more) that don't support their point of view are wrong. Obviously you can prove anything by cherry picking but it's always amusing to watch them squirm as they try to justify their why one beats 1000, despite them having only read the one. Hmm i'm not sure that would work cause they could always say: well even darwin was alone to uphold evolution, so this fine author is just the begining of a new wave of enlightment. There's always got to be a first... While that is true it's also true that ID has been going a long time now and it's just not going anywhere.   Quote The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Darwin's idea caught on because it had explanatory power. It could explain observed facts in a way that no other idea could. The question to ask those who claim a new enlightenment is coming is "What does your idea explain better that current ideas do not?" If nothing, on what basis do they hold to it or claim it is better then existing ideas? Another point to raise is that there is a difference between positive evidence for ID and simply picking holes in evolution. Picking holes in our current understanding is fine, but what do they propose to replace it with? For example, they have a paper that shows that gene X is impossible to evolve using current known mechanisms of evolution. That does not support ID in any way, shape or form. What ID needs to support ID is positive evidence for ID, not "negative" evidence for evolution. Until they can actually produce such positive evidence then they've got nothing.   So, again, this new wave of enlightenment proposes to do what? Replace the idea of evolution with an idea that better explains observed evidence? Just ask them what it explains and how.... "It was designed" is the typical answer. Which is always good for a laugh. It's also amusing that in no peer reviewed paper from the usual gang (Dembski, Behe etc) the "Intelligent Designer" has ever been mentioned. They allude to it, but never actually use the phrase. So again it's just a case of picking holes in our (admittedly) incomplete understanding of evolution, not actually generating support for their idea, whatever that idea actually is! Ask them when they predict evolution will be debunked. When they answer give them this link: http://chem.tufts.edu/Answers....se.html -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Southstar Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,12:00    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,11:29) Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,11:01)     Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,10:26)     Quote Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap It's always amusing to ask them why they believe this paper, that happens (presumably) to support their point of view, is right yet all the others (many many more) that don't support their point of view are wrong. Obviously you can prove anything by cherry picking but it's always amusing to watch them squirm as they try to justify their why one beats 1000, despite them having only read the one. Hmm i'm not sure that would work cause they could always say: well even darwin was alone to uphold evolution, so this fine author is just the begining of a new wave of enlightment. There's always got to be a first... While that is true it's also true that ID has been going a long time now and it's just not going anywhere.     Quote The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Darwin's idea caught on because it had explanatory power. It could explain observed facts in a way that no other idea could. The question to ask those who claim a new enlightenment is coming is "What does your idea explain better that current ideas do not?" If nothing, on what basis do they hold to it or claim it is better then existing ideas? Another point to raise is that there is a difference between positive evidence for ID and simply picking holes in evolution. Picking holes in our current understanding is fine, but what do they propose to replace it with? For example, they have a paper that shows that gene X is impossible to evolve using current known mechanisms of evolution. That does not support ID in any way, shape or form. What ID needs to support ID is positive evidence for ID, not "negative" evidence for evolution. Until they can actually produce such positive evidence then they've got nothing.   So, again, this new wave of enlightenment proposes to do what? Replace the idea of evolution with an idea that better explains observed evidence? Just ask them what it explains and how.... "It was designed" is the typical answer. Which is always good for a laugh. It's also amusing that in no peer reviewed paper from the usual gang (Dembski, Behe etc) the "Intelligent Designer" has ever been mentioned. They allude to it, but never actually use the phrase. So again it's just a case of picking holes in our (admittedly) incomplete understanding of evolution, not actually generating support for their idea, whatever that idea actually is! Ask them when they predict evolution will be debunked. When they answer give them this link: http://chem.tufts.edu/Answers....se.html I get the feeling that they are looking for something you can't answer which sooner or later comes up then they say: (Here's a mock argument) Southstar: Well we can't really explain x yet, but science is working on it besides just because we can't explain it yet doesn't mean the designer™ did it. TARD1: Well see, you have faith in the science... even though you don't have an answer you have faith, so science is a faith. TARD 2: Ah and not to mention that it's a sect, see they all have faith in each others work, nobody even bothers to check if something is wrong they just assume it's right cause another scientist said so. Just look at a research paper full of assumptions of other scientists your just building a house of cards on nothing. on faith. Since when does a biologist check to see if an astronmers conclusions are right they just believe they are right. So if you have faith in science, it's misplaced, cause we hold all the faith cookies. -------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,12:10    The answer to that is simply this (or a simple answer is), one position is 100% faith and the other is <100% faith. If they want to go with ideas that have not changed in 2000+ years then good luck to them. I personally don't find that very intellectually fulfilling or interesting. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,12:23    At Panda's Thumb I posted this comment: Quote I was thinking about how ordinary it really is to infer derivation (in relation to comments on this thread), and how oddly IDiots deny it, so I Googled one of Stephen Meyer’s references to it. He also mentions it in his book Signature in the Cell, but I didn’t want to write that out. So here’s Meyer noting how we infer derivation, only he weirdly calls it detection of “design”:   Quote STEVE: No. You just put words into my mouth. I was saying that the scientists in many fields -– you and I were talking about plagiarism before we came on the air -– it’s possible now with programs to detect papers that students turn in that have been plagiarized. Well that’s a form of inferring to design. Kind of sneaky malevolent design, but when you see a string of characters that match up from two different strings, highly improbable arrangement, that match, we call that a specification and you have improbability in specification, we design people say that indicates intelligence. Well, that’s a form of reasoning that is not only – let me finish…    http://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript1246.html Only in the loosest and most question-begging sense (in what way is it “design”?) is this detecting “design.” It’s detecting derivation, and if we can assume derivation in his case, why not in the case of life? Life doesn’t “look designed” except in a very amorphous and agency-biased manner, but it looks derived through and through, and all reasonable tests for such derivation support that inference. Behe accepts that (without accepting that it is the limits of known mechanisms of derivation and adaptation that give us the best indication of evolution), while Meyer apparently is more of a traditional creationist, nevertheless trotting out the fact that we can detect derivation readily (with changes, certainly, in the case of human judgment) without understanding how that speaks volumes for evolutionary evidence. Follow the evidence they say, and then mold the evidence to fit their presuppositions, not accepting what is obvious from that evidence. I know that this doesn't speak to any specifics here, it's just general to what creationists do, shoehorn anything into creationism or "design," even great examples of how we do detect derivation reliably.  Or should we suppose that God just copied thoughts from person to person, being the source of all truth, as several religious plagiarizers have explained their obviously derivative works?   Would he have accepted a magical explanation for "so-called plagiarism" when he was a professor?  If not, why does he accept, indeed, relish, one for all of the derivation found in life? Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

Southstar Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,12:26    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,12:10) The answer to that is simply this (or a simple answer is), one position is 100% faith and the other is <100% faith. If they want to go with ideas that have not changed in 2000+ years then good luck to them. I personally don't find that very intellectually fulfilling or interesting. no that's a deathtrap that's exactly what they want you to say. 'Caus then the answer is: ahh see firstly he admits it's mostely faith, so people all those studies he dished out that's all faith based.  Our ideas don't change because they are right you change your ideas all the time cause you're never right. So since most schools by your admission teach a faith, so why not teach a realy faith... the one with all the cookies, that we got. Don't want to go there... -------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,12:35    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,05:12) Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 25 2011,00:36) Hi, Okay now i understand why they keep throwing papers by this Lonning chap... He's a JW!! So you see they got their own private scientists, although that's a contradiction in terms... Questione 1) How do you know if a paper is peer reviewed and who the reviewers are? Questione 2) Here's the latest work of art http://www.weloennig.de/ShortVe....006.pdf Have you ever heard of this almighty natural law? Question 3) Do you know of any review of this paper in scientific literature. Thanks Marty The particular article, "Mutations: The Law of Recurrent Variation" was from an invited paper to a book on commercial flower growing. It was not likely reviewed anonymously in the same way as a journal article, but was certainly read carefully by the book's editor. The so-called "law" seems to exist only in the imagination of Lönnig. No one else has ever referenced, or 'applied' it. It boils down to the (apparent) limit of induced mutation to alter phenotype (esp. outward appearance) before the chemicals, or radiation used kills the organism. This is hardly big news. Particularly in plants, more new species are the product of  polypoid hybrids that then shed, or mutated duplicated genes than any point mutations alone. What I suspect these people are doing is just throwing random Google search results at you to waste your time. Start insisting they explain why this, or that paper is relevant. Edited by Dr.GH on Nov. 25 2011,13:06 -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Southstar Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,13:16    Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 25 2011,12:35) Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,05:12) [quote=Dr.GH,Nov. 25 2011,00:36] What I susspect these people are doing is just throwing random Google search results at you to waste your time. Start insisting they explain why this, or that paper is relevant. No it's not random, this lonning chap, is a JW. And he got kicked out of the Max Plank institute because according to him he had a enlighing thought that was against the evil science of our age... Nuff said. -------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,13:48    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,12:26)   Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,12:10) The answer to that is simply this (or a simple answer is), one position is 100% faith and the other is <100% faith. If they want to go with ideas that have not changed in 2000+ years then good luck to them. I personally don't find that very intellectually fulfilling or interesting. no that's a deathtrap that's exactly what they want you to say. 'Caus then the answer is: ahh see firstly he admits it's mostely faith, so people all those studies he dished out that's all faith based.  Our ideas don't change because they are right you change your ideas all the time cause you're never right. So since most schools by your admission teach a faith, so why not teach a realy faith... the one with all the cookies, that we got. Don't want to go there... Yes, of course. However it depends on how you define "right". Was Newton right or wrong? Was Einstein? It's not that we're "never right" it's rather that the accuracy of our rightness is constantly increasing whereas theirs is static and unchanging. So if they are in fact wrong (as somebody has to be as not all religions can be right by definition) the chances of them actually finding that out is zero. So they are potentially wasting their lives worshipping the wrong god. But sure, it's not the place to go with these people but perhaps the "ever increasing rightness" is something worth mentioning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._giants   Quote Dwarfs standing on the shoulders of giants (Latin: nanos gigantium humeris insidentes) is a Western metaphor meaning "One who develops future intellectual pursuits by understanding the research and works created by notable thinkers of the past," a contemporary interpretation. However, the metaphor was first recorded in the twelfth century and attributed to Bernard of Chartres.[1] It was famously uttered by seventeenth-century scientist Isaac Newton (see below). The picture is derived from the Greek mythology where the blind giant Orion carried his servant Cedalion on his shoulders. They've had since the beginning of recorded history and how did they do? Since the enlightenment progress in understanding our universe has been somewhat more rapid. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,13:59    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,13:48) ... They've had since the beginning of recorded history and how did they do? Since the enlightenment progress in understanding our universe has been somewhat more rapid. Brilliant!

Southstar Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,15:19    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 25 2011,13:59) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,13:48) ... They've had since the beginning of recorded history and how did they do? Since the enlightenment progress in understanding our universe has been somewhat more rapid. Brilliant!  :D The "dust bunny" argument that just wiped them out!! Lol They're running all over the place trying to justify that the dust bunny is less complex than a cell and is therefor more likely to appear under my bed. -------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,16:12    Here's one you might like to try. I used it at UD but did not put much effort into it. I asked at UD why is an onion, with it's out sized genome, not expected to have more FSCI (or whatever) then a human (which they claim is the case). The best (only IIRC) answer I got? It has lower FSCI then a human because of the number of cell types that need to be specified. Fewer in a onion then human, despite genome size differences. So if that's true them it means that your gut bacteria have more FSCI then the human they inhabit because there are more types of them then there are different cells in a human. We've been to the Moon. Yet we have less "complex information" then our gut bacteria. Perhaps going to the moon was their idea and humans just acted it out? So what is FSCI actually measuring? Obviously it's not measuring anything because it can't be calculated but you get the idea. Just some random thoughts... -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 25 2011,17:14    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 25 2011,12:26) Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 25 2011,12:10) The answer to that is simply this (or a simple answer is), one position is 100% faith and the other is <100% faith. If they want to go with ideas that have not changed in 2000+ years then good luck to them. I personally don't find that very intellectually fulfilling or interesting. no that's a deathtrap that's exactly what they want you to say. 'Caus then the answer is: ahh see firstly he admits it's mostely faith, so people all those studies he dished out that's all faith based.  Our ideas don't change because they are right you change your ideas all the time cause you're never right. So since most schools by your admission teach a faith, so why not teach a realy faith... the one with all the cookies, that we got. Don't want to go there... The difference is, in all of recorded history, those people that have had 'faith' in science... have been fully justified in that faith. Every bit of technology, every bit of knowledge that can be falsified, has come about through science. Not a single bit (literally) of falsifiable knowledge has come from religion or creationism or intelligent design. The creationists (as OM pointed out) have been saying that the demise of Darwinism is coming... and they have been saying it for over 100 years.  Yet, evolutionary theory is stronger than ever. Finally, it's not really faith.  It's using the knowledge and skills given to us by science and taking it one step farther.  It's called predicting and creationism, in it's 2000 year history has never successfully made a prediction.   Science has. I think we're fully justified in our 'faith' (for want of a better term in this context) in science. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Cubist Posts: 559 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,01:08    Faith is a funny thing. One can have faith that the Sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning, and one can have faith in Jesus Christ. But even tho one "has faith" in both cases, there seems to be a fairly significant distinction between the "faith" one has that the Sun will do, tomorrow, just what it's always done in the past however-many million days... and the "faith" one has in something that one believes because Someone In A Position Of Authority Said So. And it's worth noting that in the case of religious belief, there's one truly humongous pile of different religions, every one of which has Someone In A Position Of Authority to back it up, and every one of which contradicts most/all of the others, sometimes in relatively trivial ways (quick: what are the doctrinal differences between Anglicans and Methodists?) and sometimes in extremely significant ways (Christians say the Messiah has already been here; Jews are still waiting for the Messiah to show up). So if your Creationist buddies want to make noise about how "it's all faith", fine. Insist on distinguishing between sun-rises-in-the-east-Faith, and Faith-based-on-authority... and ask them how the heck can you tell whether any given idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority is true? With an idea that's believed on account of sun-rises-in-the-east-Faith, you can always check it out and see for yourself whether or not whatever-it-is is true; with an idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority, the historical record suggests that there isn't any way to determine whether or not whatever-it-is is true. Rather, the historical record of religious belief, and Faith-based-on-authority in general, suggests that under a Faith-based-on-authority paradigm, 'erroneous' ideas aren't disproved, but, rather, are actively suppressed by violence and torture, up to & including the outright murder of 'heretics'. So. Your Creationist buddies want to play the it's-all-faith card? Fine. Demand that they provide examples of scientific ideas being suppressed by violence, torture, and/or outright murder. edited to correct a dumb-ass brainfart about how the Sun rises in the west... oops...

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,02:11    Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 26 2011,01:08) Faith is a funny thing. One can have faith that the Sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning, and one can have faith in Jesus Christ. But even tho one "has faith" in both cases, there seems to be a fairly significant distinction between the "faith" one has that the Sun will do, tomorrow, just what it's always done in the past however-many million days... and the "faith" one has in something that one believes because Someone In A Position Of Authority Said So. And it's worth noting that in the case of religious belief, there's one truly humongous pile of different religions, every one of which has Someone In A Position Of Authority to back it up, and every one of which contradicts most/all of the others, sometimes in trivial ways (quick: what are the doctrinal differences between Anglicans and Methodists?) and sometimes in extremely significant ways (Christians say the Messiah has already been here; Jews as still waiting for the Messiah to show up). So if your Creationist buddies want to make noise about how "it's all faith", fine. Insist on distinguishing between sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, and Faith-based-on-authority... and ask them how the heck can you tell whether any given idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority is true? With an idea that's believed on account of sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, you can always check it out and see for yourself whether or not whatever-it-is is true; with an idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority, the historical record suggests that there isn't any way to determine whether or not whatever-it-is is true. Rather, the historical record of religious belief, and Faith-based-on-authority in general, suggests that under a Faith-based-on-authority paradigm, 'erroneous' ideas aren't disproved, but, rather, are actively suppressed by violence and torture, up to & including the outright murder of 'heretics'. So. Your Creationist buddies want to play the it's-all-faith card? Fine. Demand that they provide examples of scientific ideas being suppressed by violence, torture, and/or outright murder. I don't think the Sun rises in the west. I hope that opinion isn't set in stone as it could rise up and bite you in the ass.

Southstar Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,02:55    Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 26 2011,01:08) Faith is a funny thing. One can have faith that the Sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning, and one can have faith in Jesus Christ. But even tho one "has faith" in both cases, there seems to be a fairly significant distinction between the "faith" one has that the Sun will do, tomorrow, just what it's always done in the past however-many million days... and the "faith" one has in something that one believes because Someone In A Position Of Authority Said So. And it's worth noting that in the case of religious belief, there's one truly humongous pile of different religions, every one of which has Someone In A Position Of Authority to back it up, and every one of which contradicts most/all of the others, sometimes in trivial ways (quick: what are the doctrinal differences between Anglicans and Methodists?) and sometimes in extremely significant ways (Christians say the Messiah has already been here; Jews as still waiting for the Messiah to show up). So if your Creationist buddies want to make noise about how "it's all faith", fine. Insist on distinguishing between sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, and Faith-based-on-authority... and ask them how the heck can you tell whether any given idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority is true? With an idea that's believed on account of sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, you can always check it out and see for yourself whether or not whatever-it-is is true; with an idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority, the historical record suggests that there isn't any way to determine whether or not whatever-it-is is true. Rather, the historical record of religious belief, and Faith-based-on-authority in general, suggests that under a Faith-based-on-authority paradigm, 'erroneous' ideas aren't disproved, but, rather, are actively suppressed by violence and torture, up to & including the outright murder of 'heretics'. So. Your Creationist buddies want to play the it's-all-faith card? Fine. Demand that they provide examples of scientific ideas being suppressed by violence, torture, and/or outright murder. I don't think it's a good idea to go down this road. One cause most scriptures both cristian and of other religions are generally very complex texts and one can litiraly find proof of anything in them as long as you interpret them the way that suits you in that moment. So if you ask: well what did the Bible/Quran predict? one can arguably find and construct a pritty convincing case for almost anything using the fine and distinguished art of free interpretation and cut past collage quotes. Hell they even used the bible to back more than one war in the past, an let's not even get into the contorted use of the Quran. -------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 26 2011,08:44    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 26 2011,02:55) Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 26 2011,01:08) Faith is a funny thing. One can have faith that the Sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning, and one can have faith in Jesus Christ. But even tho one "has faith" in both cases, there seems to be a fairly significant distinction between the "faith" one has that the Sun will do, tomorrow, just what it's always done in the past however-many million days... and the "faith" one has in something that one believes because Someone In A Position Of Authority Said So. And it's worth noting that in the case of religious belief, there's one truly humongous pile of different religions, every one of which has Someone In A Position Of Authority to back it up, and every one of which contradicts most/all of the others, sometimes in trivial ways (quick: what are the doctrinal differences between Anglicans and Methodists?) and sometimes in extremely significant ways (Christians say the Messiah has already been here; Jews as still waiting for the Messiah to show up). So if your Creationist buddies want to make noise about how "it's all faith", fine. Insist on distinguishing between sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, and Faith-based-on-authority... and ask them how the heck can you tell whether any given idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority is true? With an idea that's believed on account of sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, you can always check it out and see for yourself whether or not whatever-it-is is true; with an idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority, the historical record suggests that there isn't any way to determine whether or not whatever-it-is is true. Rather, the historical record of religious belief, and Faith-based-on-authority in general, suggests that under a Faith-based-on-authority paradigm, 'erroneous' ideas aren't disproved, but, rather, are actively suppressed by violence and torture, up to & including the outright murder of 'heretics'. So. Your Creationist buddies want to play the it's-all-faith card? Fine. Demand that they provide examples of scientific ideas being suppressed by violence, torture, and/or outright murder. I don't think it's a good idea to go down this road. One cause most scriptures both cristian and of other religions are generally very complex texts and one can litiraly find proof of anything in them as long as you interpret them the way that suits you in that moment. So if you ask: well what did the Bible/Quran predict? one can arguably find and construct a pritty convincing case for almost anything using the fine and distinguished art of free interpretation and cut past collage quotes. Hell they even used the bible to back more than one war in the past, an let's not even get into the contorted use of the Quran. Which is the entire point.  Not that this should devolve into a religious discussion, but it's worth bringing up here. If the text is SO open to interpretation that it can be, literally, anything for anyone... then it's utterly useless.  You might as well just have a bunch of people making stuff up... just like now. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Southstar Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,10:18    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 26 2011,08:44) Some help needed to fight behe's silly work. Okay I have made the following case against this paper presented by the Tards. but before I write it down I want to check with you guys if I'm on track. I don't want to mess this part up. here is the link to the paper: http://www.lehigh.edu/bio....per.pdf Ioseb is using the paper in the following way: He is arguing that, the paper proves beyond doubt that there are hardly any gain of FCT mutations. So evolution can't occur. So it's all wrong. Here are my accusations: 1) The paper is limited in that it only analises bacteria and viruses. No eukyrots are analised. So how the hell can you say that it applies to life in general. 2) The paper is limited to artificial experiments in which the process of natural selection has been removed. The only natural case examined was malaria. 3) Concerning the case Gain of FCT function i found a comment on a critic site: http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010....w-paper stating that: "The construction by mutation of a new promoter, intron/exon splice site, or protein processing site are gain-of-FCT mutations. Also included in this category is the divergence by mutation of the activity of a previously duplicated coded element.” In other words, mutations in this category produce new genes, parts of genes, or confer drastic new capabilities on genes by adding new splicing sites. Also note that because almost no bacteria or viruses have introns in their cellular genes, it’s impossible to even see one class of this mutation in lab experiments on these groups. a) What does this last paragraph mean? b) How does this relate to FCT gains? c) Is there evidence to support this? 4) Behe states regarding Lenskies experiments: If the phenotype is due to one or more mutations that result in, for example, the addition of a novel genetic regulatory element, gene-duplication with sequence divergence, or the gain of a new binding site, then it will be a noteworthy gain-of-FCT mutation. Do we have examples of gain-of-FCT mutations in experiments similar to Lenskies? 5) Is there a specific reason that has arisen in other papers as to why most of the experiments lead to loss of FCT? I would answer that it is only due to the experimenters removing natural selection from the equation. Would I be right? 6) The work is based on three organisms, prokaryotes, viruses and hemoglobin? Eukyrotes are not included in the study. Or does table 1 automatically include eukyrotes? 7) Plasmodium falciparum (malaria) is a eukyrote but the genetic mutation that is being studied is of Hemoglobin not of the malaria. Is this correct? 8) Isoeb makes the following case: The adaptation to Malaria is the sickle cell. Which is obviously due to FCT loss and leads to premature death.  Only on extremely rare occasions do we get gain of FCT by Chloroquine Complexity Cluster or C Harlem. How rare is this gain let me tell you with C Harlem where the are two conections sites in the plasmid: it required 10^40 organisms to get this mutation. Seeing as there is only one known case. Want to know how many organisims are estimated to have been around since start of life on the planet? 10^40. Do you know how may conection sites ther are in a cell 10.000. Okay point one: I would say that he's making the stupid probability error again so I just fight this with the "evil killer dust bunny". Point two: What has this got to do with anything??? 8) Ioseb calls my attenton to this site: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7574/ Saying that you see another study say exactly the same thing. I looked at it and could find nothing of the sort... 9) My main argument is that okay so he saw loss of FCT functions in controlled environments in a few species of bacteria and virus (except the malaria) sooo what? Thanks for your imput on this Marty -------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,10:28    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2011,10:18) He is arguing that, the paper proves beyond doubt that there are hardly any gain of FCT mutations. Hardly any is still a number greater then zero. And that's all that is required.   Quote My main argument is that okay so he saw loss of FCT functions in controlled environments in a few species of bacteria and virus (except the malaria) sooo what? This is where I usually bring out the evil designer options. The parasitical brain sucking wasp, for example. It exists because A) It was designed to be like that. B) It evolved. If A) then the designer is a shit. If B) Then, well, we all agree. They might choose option C) which is that it was once "good" and due to the fall it devolved into what it currently is. And that's good because it means they have already left the realm of science far behind. So even if it "devolved" from it's original perfect state that does not actually help them because that means that evolution can significantly change organisms, and that's what they are disputing. Ask then who designed this behavior, evolution or their "designer"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......id_wasp Either way they lose. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Southstar Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,11:04    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 27 2011,10:28) Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2011,10:18) He is arguing that, the paper proves beyond doubt that there are hardly any gain of FCT mutations. Hardly any is still a number greater then zero. And that's all that is required.   Quote My main argument is that okay so he saw loss of FCT functions in controlled environments in a few species of bacteria and virus (except the malaria) sooo what? This is where I usually bring out the evil designer options. The parasitical brain sucking wasp, for example. It exists because A) It was designed to be like that. B) It evolved. If A) then the designer is a shit. If B) Then, well, we all agree. They might choose option C) which is that it was once "good" and due to the fall it devolved into what it currently is. And that's good because it means they have already left the realm of science far behind. So even if it "devolved" from it's original perfect state that does not actually help them because that means that evolution can significantly change organisms, and that's what they are disputing. Ask then who designed this behavior, evolution or their "designer"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......id_wasp Either way they lose. As far as I can infer they assume that organisms are somehow evil if they do evil things tu humans, in this case either they are possesed or are created by the "evil one®". In the case of your wasp they would say well it's just nature god created them to take care of the pests so actually they are a blessing. So no evil designer™ in my forum Marty -------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

Dr.GH Posts: 2333 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,11:06    "Acceleration of Emergence of Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance in Connected Microenvironments" Qiucen Zhang, Guillaume Lambert, David Liao, Hyunsung Kim, Kristelle Robin,  Chih-kuan Tung, Nader Pourmand, Robert H. Austin, Science 23 September 2011: Vol. 333 no. 6050 pp. 1764-1767 Quote It is surprising that four apparently functional SNPs should fix in a population within 10 hours of exposure to antibiotic in our experiment. A detailed understanding of the order in which the SNPs occur is essential, but it is unlikely that the four SNPs emerged simultaneously; in all likelihood they are sequential. The device and data we have described here offer a template for exploring the rates at which antibiotic resistance arises in the complex fitness landscapes that prevail in the mammalian body. Furthermore, our study provides a framework for exploring rapid evolution in other contexts such as cancer. Multi-site mutations, functional mutations, 4 in TEN HOURS that replace within the population (~20 generations), why sequential mutations are functional, and more likely, and with medical applications. -------------- "Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy." L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,11:14    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2011,11:04) As far as I can infer they assume that organisms are somehow evil if they do evil things tu humans, in this case either they are possesed or are created by the "evil one®". In the case of your wasp they would say well it's just nature god created them to take care of the pests so actually they are a blessing. So no evil designer™ in my forum Marty Then they are not discussing science any more and you've essentially proven your point. If their only response to X is "god designed it that way" then it's religion they are discussing, not science. And if a brain sucking wasp is the best solution that a good god can muster up as pest control, well, that alone is a good stick to beat them with.... -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,11:17    Behe's argument was falsified before he even stated it.  Darwinian Evolution on a Chip. The mutations that resulted in a 90 fold increase in efficiency were four major mutations (including one mutation that in and of itself had a negative effect on efficiency). According to Behe, that entire experiment was impossible because it is a net gain by random mutations.   You can also avoid the 'the experiment was designed' argument because the experiment WAS designed, but the mutational processes and results were not designed.  In fact, since every mutation was easily explained by natural law and the mutations were caused by a poor copying enzyme, then a designer for the specific mutation is not only not present, but not necessary. To any of their other arguments, you can say 'it doesn't matter'.  There is a specific claim, that 2 or more specific changes to increase the function of the whatever cannot be done.  That's the claim. The Darwinian evolution on a Chip paper shows not 2, but 4 major mutations and a fair number of minor ones that don't affect the results (i.e. that all mutations are not harmful).  So, it exceeds Behe's claim and still works. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Southstar Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,11:51    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2011,11:17) Behe's argument was falsified before he even stated it.  Darwinian Evolution on a Chip. The mutations that resulted in a 90 fold increase in efficiency were four major mutations (including one mutation that in and of itself had a negative effect on efficiency). According to Behe, that entire experiment was impossible because it is a net gain by random mutations.   You can also avoid the 'the experiment was designed' argument because the experiment WAS designed, but the mutational processes and results were not designed.  In fact, since every mutation was easily explained by natural law and the mutations were caused by a poor copying enzyme, then a designer for the specific mutation is not only not present, but not necessary. To any of their other arguments, you can say 'it doesn't matter'.  There is a specific claim, that 2 or more specific changes to increase the function of the whatever cannot be done.  That's the claim. The Darwinian evolution on a Chip paper shows not 2, but 4 major mutations and a fair number of minor ones that don't affect the results (i.e. that all mutations are not harmful).  So, it exceeds Behe's claim and still works. The critique to Darwinian evolution on a chip, was that it was totally artificial and had no basis in nature. The scientists skewed the variables to create positive gain of FCT mutations. Question if his paper was falsified, is there a paper that address this. So I can say it's not only marty that's got this idea. Marty -------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,12:12    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2011,11:51) Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 27 2011,11:17) Behe's argument was falsified before he even stated it.  Darwinian Evolution on a Chip. The mutations that resulted in a 90 fold increase in efficiency were four major mutations (including one mutation that in and of itself had a negative effect on efficiency). According to Behe, that entire experiment was impossible because it is a net gain by random mutations.   You can also avoid the 'the experiment was designed' argument because the experiment WAS designed, but the mutational processes and results were not designed.  In fact, since every mutation was easily explained by natural law and the mutations were caused by a poor copying enzyme, then a designer for the specific mutation is not only not present, but not necessary. To any of their other arguments, you can say 'it doesn't matter'.  There is a specific claim, that 2 or more specific changes to increase the function of the whatever cannot be done.  That's the claim. The Darwinian evolution on a Chip paper shows not 2, but 4 major mutations and a fair number of minor ones that don't affect the results (i.e. that all mutations are not harmful).  So, it exceeds Behe's claim and still works. The critique to Darwinian evolution on a chip, was that it was totally artificial and had no basis in nature. The scientists skewed the variables to create positive gain of FCT mutations. Question if his paper was falsified, is there a paper that address this. So I can say it's not only marty that's got this idea. Marty It doesn't matter.  I told you they would use the "It's a designed experiment" option. And it doesn't matter.  There was a specific claim made... that no two mutations could happen to increase the function of an RNA (in this case). That claim has been falsified.  It doesn't matter if it doesn't happen in nature.  What is nature?  The natural world.. EVERYTHING is a part of nature, including that lab, and those scientists, and those RNAs, and those copy enzymes.   The RNA doesn't care if it's in a test tube or in a puddle or in a human or in a liverwort.  All any of it does is what it is supposed to do.  The end result of the experiment showed a MASSIVE gain in function.  Not a little, but a huge gain. Therefore, the claim, as stated is falsified.  BTWL I have talked to Dr. Joyce.  My understanding is that the samples from this run are still available.  I'd love to see these guys take a look at them and find the place where the designer worked. Basically, their objection to the experiment is a red herring.  It is meaningless.   First they would need to state a definition of 'designed' or 'to design'.  I predict that they will refuse to do so.  If they do, then they will provide a definition so loose, that I could claim to have designed my son. Did the scientists design (piece-by-piece) any of the RNA during this experiment (before, during or after)?  No. Did the scientists design (piece-by-piece) any of the enzymes during this experiment (before, during or after)?  No. Did the scientists design (piece-by-piece) any of the mutations during this experiment (before, during or after)?  No. Therefore, they did not design THE RESULTS of the experiment. I know this is very picky, but that's the way science and logic work.   There was a claim made, that two or more mutations are so impossible to happen that they will not.  That claim is falsified here. The other claim is that two or more mutations cannot result in improved function.  That claim is also falsified. They also might need to be told about the mutation rates in 'natural' things.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation_rate http://www.sciencemag.org/content....bstract  Shows a mutation rate that is way beyond even those levels.  BTW: This is a viroid, which is almost exactly the same thing as in Joyce's experiment. Don't let them go off on tangents.  They made a very specific claim.  That claim is refuted.   If they can bury you under BS, then you'll never get out.  State it very specifically.  This is the claim... this is why it is refuted. The experimental nature has nothing to do with the results.  If that were the case, then easily 75% of modern science would be wrong. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Southstar Posts: 150 Joined: Nov. 2011 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,12:15    Quote (Dr.GH @ Nov. 27 2011,11:06) "Acceleration of Emergence of Bacterial Antibiotic Resistance in Connected Microenvironments" Qiucen Zhang, Guillaume Lambert, David Liao, Hyunsung Kim, Kristelle Robin,  Chih-kuan Tung, Nader Pourmand, Robert H. Austin, Science 23 September 2011: Vol. 333 no. 6050 pp. 1764-1767 Do you have an access link for the whole study? I was only able to find the abstract Thanks Marty -------------- "Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

qetzal Posts: 311 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,14:44    Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 27 2011,10:18) [Ioseb] is arguing that, the paper proves beyond doubt that there are hardly any gain of FCT mutations. So evolution can't occur. So it's all wrong. Simply showing that gain-of-FCT mutations are uncommon proves nothing of the sort. For Ioseb to make his case, he'd need to show that gain-of-FCT mutations occur too infrequently to support the rate at which new phenotypes have appeared over the past few billion years. Behe doesn't do that in his paper, and I'm confident Ioseb can't do it either. In any case, focusing on gain-of-FCTs is a red herring. If modification of an existing function leads to a new function, it's still a new function. Especially if the modification involves gene duplication so that the original function is maintained as well. So Ioseb's (and Behe's) challenge is actually much greater: show that the combined rate of M+G mutations isn't enough to support evolution of existing diversity.

Cubist Posts: 559 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,16:26    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Nov. 26 2011,02:11) Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 26 2011,01:08) Faith is a funny thing. One can have faith that the Sun will rise in the west tomorrow morning, and one can have faith in Jesus Christ. But even tho one "has faith" in both cases, there seems to be a fairly significant distinction between the "faith" one has that the Sun will do, tomorrow, just what it's always done in the past however-many million days... and the "faith" one has in something that one believes because Someone In A Position Of Authority Said So. And it's worth noting that in the case of religious belief, there's one truly humongous pile of different religions, every one of which has Someone In A Position Of Authority to back it up, and every one of which contradicts most/all of the others, sometimes in trivial ways (quick: what are the doctrinal differences between Anglicans and Methodists?) and sometimes in extremely significant ways (Christians say the Messiah has already been here; Jews as still waiting for the Messiah to show up). So if your Creationist buddies want to make noise about how "it's all faith", fine. Insist on distinguishing between sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, and Faith-based-on-authority... and ask them how the heck can you tell whether any given idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority is true? With an idea that's believed on account of sun-rises-in-the-west-Faith, you can always check it out and see for yourself whether or not whatever-it-is is true; with an idea that's believed on account of Faith-based-on-authority, the historical record suggests that there isn't any way to determine whether or not whatever-it-is is true. Rather, the historical record of religious belief, and Faith-based-on-authority in general, suggests that under a Faith-based-on-authority paradigm, 'erroneous' ideas aren't disproved, but, rather, are actively suppressed by violence and torture, up to & including the outright murder of 'heretics'. So. Your Creationist buddies want to play the it's-all-faith card? Fine. Demand that they provide examples of scientific ideas being suppressed by violence, torture, and/or outright murder. I don't think the Sun rises in the west. I hope that opinion isn't set in stone as it could rise up and bite you in the ass.     ;) You're only saying that 'cause it's true, damn your eyes... [sigh] My bad, and thanks for catching the error. Will edit to correct said error ASAP.

Cubist Posts: 559 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 27 2011,16:46    "The experiment was designed, therefore the results of the experiment were designed!" is a common IDiot response when faced with experimental results which nuke their assertions. It's also pretty stoopid, and you can make the stoopidity very obvious indeed with a few simple word-substitutions... The roulette wheel was designed, therefore the sequence of numbers which come up on the wheel was designed! The refrigerator was designed, therefore ice is designed! Also, it's worth noting that the experiment was designed, therefore the results were designed is a veiled accusation of fraud on the part of scientists. It's saying that they got the results they got because they damn well made sure they got that particular set of results. Do your Creationist buddies really want to say that real scientists fabricate their experimental results?

Pages: (13) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard