Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::Daniel Smith's "Argument from Impossibility"

Posted: Feb. 25 2009,00:54

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,19:07)

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 24 2009,02:13)

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

[snip]

Louis

Congratulations Louis!

You've just joined oldman on my Troll list.

It's quite obvious that you just want to harass me and that no civil or productive discussion can be had with you.

I'll be skipping all your posts too now.

Cool! This reminds me of a guy on another board, who kept threatening with putting people on his ignore list. He even added the names of those he ignored to his sigline. Pretty funny. We all tried to get on his ignore list. Can't recall if he ever did get to me, now that I think of it. Damn. Always the bridesmaid never the bride...

(Of course, I rarely blush, so maybe that is part of the reason. Can't get that sexual-pink coloration that stimulates the sex drive, if you go for that hypothesis)

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

Badger3k

Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

Posted: Feb. 25 2009,01:00

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 24 2009,23:41)

i have it good authority that CD also invented time travel and grand theft auto 4.

Ahh - I knew there was a reason I liked that game.

Wait - was Darwin the guy with the telephone booth who picked up "so-crates"? I get confused with all that time travel paradox stuff. Although, if Fry can be his own grandfather, does that prove evolution false?

:p

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

snorkild

Posts: 32
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 25 2009,02:40

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 23 2009,17:59)

I've explained the mechanisms of creation as well as anyone here has elucidated the mechanisms of evolution.

LOL sure!

Quote

Life was built by an omniscient being who was able to bring atoms together via an as-yet-unknown method. He used his vast knowledge of chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, the future and the past to design successful biological systems which would be functional, adaptive, self-maintaining, elegant, efficient and evolvable. He used the as-yet-unknown method to implement said designs into life. This method was probably similar to the one we humans use on a macro-scale when we build houses, bridges, cars and the like. It involves the orderly joining of parts into a whole.

That's a lot of unknowns in critical places.

Tell me: Did God insert the defect vitamin C gene into every Old World Monkey species, or did he create the broken gene only once, and then left evolution to do the rest?

--------------
wimp

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Feb. 25 2009,03:00

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,19:07)

Congratulations Louis!

You've just joined oldman on my Troll list.

It's quite obvious that you just want to harass me and that no civil or productive discussion can be had with you.

I'll be skipping all your posts too now.

Seems to me that very shortly the only people talking to you will be the people telling you to fuck off.

Enjoy!

--------------
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

oldmanintheskydidntdoit

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Feb. 25 2009,03:07

Is Denial really Thomas Cudworth?

Quote

I don’t want to hear, for the umpteenth time, how a light-sensistive spot might have retreated into a depression, and then could have been accidentally covered over by some semi-transparent skin which later could have become a lens, etc. I want to see specific mechanisms for all of these changes in terms of particular point mutations along the genome, and related developmental changes. I want to see checkable numbers given for mutation rates, I want full lists of ecological competitors inhabiting the Ordovician ocean, I want accurate CO2 and ultra-violet levels and other relevant environmental data over the period of time in question, etc. Most such details are lacking in Darwinian accounts. We can’t test the efficacy of RM + NS if we don’t have precise information regarding both the mutation side and the selection side.

an-open-challenge-to-neo-darwinists-what-would-it-take-to-falsify-your-theory/
If not, they are brothers in tard.

--------------
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

Rrr

Posts: 146
Joined: Nov. 2008

Posted: Feb. 25 2009,03:14

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 25 2009,03:07)

Is Denial really Thomas Cudworth?

Quote

I don’t want to hear, for the umpteenth time, how a light-sensistive spot might have retreated into a depression, and then could have been accidentally covered over by some semi-transparent skin which later could have become a lens, etc. I want to see specific mechanisms for all of these changes in terms of particular point mutations along the genome, and related developmental changes. I want to see checkable numbers given for mutation rates, I want full lists of ecological competitors inhabiting the Ordovician ocean, I want accurate CO2 and ultra-violet levels and other relevant environmental data over the period of time in question, etc. Most such details are lacking in Darwinian accounts. We can’t test the efficacy of RM + NS if we don’t have precise information regarding both the mutation side and the selection side.

an-open-challenge-to-neo-darwinists-what-would-it-take-to-falsify-your-theory/
If not, they are brothers in tard.

I doubt that. ;) Denial is hardly worth cud. ;)

Brothers? Well, the same kind, it certainly seems.

Louis

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 25 2009,03:25

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 25 2009,01:07)

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 24 2009,02:13)

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

[snip]

Louis

Congratulations Louis!

You've just joined oldman on my Troll list.

It's quite obvious that you just want to harass me and that no civil or productive discussion can be had with you.

I'll be skipping all your posts too now.

All very nice, but you need to prove you are not a child molester. I claim that it is impossible for you to prove you are not a child molester, it's up to you to prove that wrong, like you I don't need to provide details.

BTW your whining doesn't constitute some species of moral high ground. It's abundantly obvious what you are and I am happy tp point it out.

Louis

--------------
Bye.

mitschlag

Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

Posted: Feb. 25 2009,06:38

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 24 2009,20:11)

Don't be sad. Whatever my size, I rely upon serious scholars of biological science - e.g. Ernst Mayr in the his 1982 masterwork The Growth of Biological Thought and Stephen Jay Gould in his The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, among others - for guidance regarding where to put my limited time and energy, not obtuse science deniers with zero credibility (you). Mayr, for example, summarized several facts of evolution...
....

In short, Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, Bateson and other saltationists are part of scientific history, obsolete for a half-century and longer, and no longer relevant to current thinking. I don't have time for that.

Well said and quoted, Bill. Here's more from Mayr on pages 530-531 that bears on your points:

Quote

In due time all theories defending orthogenesis were refuted, but this does not justify ignoring this literature. The major representatives of orthogenesis, whether paleontologists or other kinds of naturalists, were keen observers and brought together fascinating evidence for evolutionary trends and for genetic constraints during evolution. They were right in insisting that much of evolution is, at least superficially, "rectilinear.” In horses, the reduction of the toe bones and the changes in the teeth are well-known examples. In fact, the study of almost any extended fossil series reveals instances of evolutionary trends. Such trends are of importance to the evolutionist because they reveal the existence of continuities that are worth exploring, and have therefore been given much attention in the current evolutionary literature.

Trends may have a dual causation. On the one hand they may be caused by consistent changes of the environment, such as the increasing aridity of the subtropical and temperate zone climate during the Tertiary. This set up a continuing selection pressure which resulted in the toe and tooth evolution of the horses. A response to such a continuing selection pressure is what Plate had in mind when he introduced the term “orthoselection” (1903). On the other hand, trends may be necessitated by the internal cohesion of the genotype which places severe constraints on the morphological changes that are possible. Hence, evolutionary trends are readily explained within the explanatory framework of the Darwinian theory and do not require any separate “laws” or principles.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

Posted: Feb. 25 2009,12:28

Here's a question and a real challenge for Daniel.

Suppose that "Evolution", as per your strawman of it, is 100% wrong. Why is yours correct?

There are other creation stories, myths, etc, that are out there. What evidence do you have that shows ID to be valid? In other words, instead of demanding fossil evidence of chemical pathways, show us the evidence that you have that supports ID.

See for ID to be valid, it must stand on its own, not on the perceived faults of Evolution. A real theory shows how it explains what is already seen and makes predictions on what we should find.

I think I asked you this before, so if I did forgive me but I didn't see your response, what are the scientific, not colloquial, definitions of:

1: Postulate

2: Hypothesis

3: Theory

4: Proof

Thanks

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Feb. 25 2009,12:30

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:28)

Here's a question and a real challenge for Daniel.

Suppose that "Evolution", as per your strawman of it, is 100% wrong. Why is yours correct?

There are other creation stories, myths, etc, that are out there. What evidence do you have that shows ID to be valid? In other words, instead of demanding fossil evidence of chemical pathways, show us the evidence that you have that supports ID.

See for ID to be valid, it must stand on its own, not on the perceived faults of Evolution. A real theory shows how it explains what is already seen and makes predictions on what we should find.

I think I asked you this before, so if I did forgive me but I didn't see your response, what are the scientific, not colloquial, definitions of:

1: Postulate

2: Hypothesis

3: Theory

4: Proof

Thanks

Oh, that one's too easy!!!!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

Posted: Feb. 25 2009,13:01

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 25 2009,12:30)

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:28)

Here's a question and a real challenge for Daniel.

Suppose that "Evolution", as per your strawman of it, is 100% wrong. Why is yours correct?

(snip)

Oh, that one's too easy!!!!

We know where he gets it but why is his right and all the other faiths' versions wrong?

He needs to provide evidence for his version. Circular logic will not cut it.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

Louis

Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

Posted: Feb. 25 2009,13:27

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,19:01)

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 25 2009,12:30)

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:28)

Here's a question and a real challenge for Daniel.

Suppose that "Evolution", as per your strawman of it, is 100% wrong. Why is yours correct?

(snip)

Oh, that one's too easy!!!!

We know where he gets it but why is his right and all the other faiths' versions wrong?

He needs to provide evidence for his version. Circular logic will not cut it.

He absolutely will not do this. He knows he cannot. Hence flannelling about and cognitive dissonance and appeals to prejudice.

He cannot do it, just like he cannot prove he is not a child molester.*

Louis

*There is method to the odious and offensive frivolity of this specific analogy. Use Denial's own mode of argumentation and maybe he'll understand why it don't work none! It sometimes works....

--------------
Bye.

Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

Posted: Feb. 25 2009,14:10

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 25 2009,13:27)

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,19:01)

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 25 2009,12:30)

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:28)

Here's a question and a real challenge for Daniel.

Suppose that "Evolution", as per your strawman of it, is 100% wrong. Why is yours correct?

(snip)

Oh, that one's too easy!!!!

We know where he gets it but why is his right and all the other faiths' versions wrong?

He needs to provide evidence for his version. Circular logic will not cut it.

He absolutely will not do this. He knows he cannot. Hence flannelling about and cognitive dissonance and appeals to prejudice.

He cannot do it, just like he cannot prove he is not a child molester.*

Louis

*There is method to the odious and offensive frivolity of this specific analogy. Use Denial's own mode of argumentation and maybe he'll understand why it don't work none! It sometimes works....

That is his choice.

If he wants to "teach the controversy", it's time for him to put up what he believes to be the case. What he should describe is what his version has or does with respect to:

1: Evidence

2: Predictions

3: Repeatability

4: Falsification

Those all, and if you know more Louis let's have them, need to be shown by Daniel if he wants anyone to take him seriously.

Right now Daniel, here's a hint. All you have is a postulate. You believe that life came about in some certain manner. That's it. Can you take it higher?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

Posted: Feb. 26 2009,14:00

Hello again there Daniel,

Just letting you know I will not forget about you. Are you still at Telic Thoughts? Should I ask these there?

Thanks again,

Frank

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 26 2009,18:15

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 24 2009,18:11)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,20:22)

How would you know any of that without reading these scientists' works for yourself Bill?

Don't pre-judge what you know nothing about. It might make points here, but overall it makes you a smaller person.

You admire Gould for his open-mindedness, yet act the opposite. Sad.

Don't be sad. Whatever my size, I rely upon serious scholars of biological science - e.g. Ernst Mayr in the his 1982 masterwork The Growth of Biological Thought and Stephen Jay Gould in his The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, among others - for guidance regarding where to put my limited time and energy, not obtuse science deniers with zero credibility (you). Mayr, for example, summarized several facts of evolution, then stated:

"These findings completely refuted the antiselectionist, saltational evolutionary theories of de Vries and Bateson. Curiously, this by no means spelled the end of saltationism, which continued for several decades to have substantial support, as for instance by the geneticist Goldschmidt, the paleontologist Schindewolf...the botanist Willis, and some of the philosophers. Eventually it was universally accepted that an origin of species and higher taxa through individuals does not occur, except in the form of polyploidy (principally in plants). The phenomenon which the adherents of macrogenesis had used as support could now be readily explained in terms of gradual evolution. Particularly important...was the recognition of the importance of two previously neglected evolutionary processes: drastically different rates of evolution in different organisms and populations, and evolutionary changes in small, isolated populations. It was not until the 1940s and 50s that well-argued defenses of macrogenesis disappeared from the evolutionary literature in the wake of the evolutionary synthesis." (p. 551)

"The new understanding of the nature of populations and of species enabled the naturalists to solve the age-old problem of speciation - a problem that had been insoluble for those who looked for the solution at the level of genes or genotypes. At that level the only solution is instantaneous speciation by a drastic mutation or other unknown processes. As de Vries had stated, "the theory of mutation assumes that new species and varieties are produced from existing forms by certain leaps." Or as Goldschmidt had stated, "The decisive leap in evolution, the first step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method [that is, the origin of hopeful monsters] than that of sheer accumulation of micro mutations." The naturalists realized that the essential element of the speciation process is not the physiological mechanism involved (genes or chromosomes) but the incipient species, that is, a population. Geographic speciation, consequently, was defined by Mayr in terms of populations: "A new species develops if a population which has become geographically isolated from its parental species acquires during this period of isolation characters which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation when the external barriers break down.'" (p. 562)

In short, Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, Bateson and other saltationists are part of scientific history, obsolete for a half-century and longer, and no longer relevant to current thinking. I don't have time for that.

[edit to replace mistaken "not" with "now."]

I don't think you realize how outdated the idea of speciation via the "sheer accumulation of micro mutations" is.

Maybe you should try to find a recent paper that postulates that mechanism for the origin of any novel system.

You won't find many papers anymore that don't appeal to gene duplications, whole genome duplications, horizontal gene transfer, genetic reshuffling and the like, as opposed to an accumulation of micro mutations.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

JAM

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

Posted: Feb. 26 2009,18:28

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,19:24)

This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think?

It seems very messy to me, but then I do biology for a living. Since you think it's so neat and tidy, why don't you become a biologist and show us how neat and tidy it is?

Quote

A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.

It doesn't just fall into place. It evolves.

Quote

So, do you think evolution normally works this way?

No, you nincompoop. The norm is that it doesn't work this way, and you don't see the failures because they are selected against.

This is a fundamental concept that you fail to grasp.

Quote

It sure seems a lot more like the "unfolding of pre-existing rudiments" than "selection acting on random variation" - wouldn't you say?

Nope. I wouldn't say that the selection is acting on "random variation," as the variation is only random wrt fitness. Why do you keep using that tired old straw man?

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 26 2009,18:34

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 24 2009,17:58)

you poor dumb bastard, there is no 'their own'. wrong is fucking wrong. and you are wrong, inasmuch as you say anything of substance.

You're right Erasmus - someone is wrong here.

You claim that the paper Albatrossity recommended, and I later cited, was full of errors in regard to its classification of the Tragopogon mirus and T. miscellus species.

So whom am I to believe: Ales Kovarik and R. Matyasek of the Institute of Biophysics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Kralovopolska; J. C. Pires of the Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison; A. R. Leitch and K. Y. Lim of the School of Biological Sciences, Queen Mary, University of London; A. Sherwood of the School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman; J. Rocca and P. Soltis of the Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville; and D. Soltis of the Department of Botany, University of Florida, Gainesville;

OR...

Erasmus, FCD - foul-mouthed, anonymous internet poster?

That's a tuffy!! But I think I'll side with those who actually sign and stand behind their work.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Texas Teach

Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Feb. 26 2009,18:40

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 26 2009,18:34)

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 24 2009,17:58)

you poor dumb bastard, there is no 'their own'. wrong is fucking wrong. and you are wrong, inasmuch as you say anything of substance.

You're right Erasmus - someone is wrong here.

You claim that the paper Albatrossity recommended, and I later cited, was full of errors in regard to its classification of the Tragopogon mirus and T. miscellus species.

So whom am I to believe: Ales Kovarik and R. Matyasek of the Institute of Biophysics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Kralovopolska; J. C. Pires of the Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison; A. R. Leitch and K. Y. Lim of the School of Biological Sciences, Queen Mary, University of London; A. Sherwood of the School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman; J. Rocca and P. Soltis of the Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville; and D. Soltis of the Department of Botany, University of Florida, Gainesville;

OR...

Erasmus, FCD - foul-mouthed, anonymous internet poster?

That's a tuffy!! But I think I'll side with those who actually sign and stand behind their work.

That sound you just heard is the sound of all irony meters stopping instantaneously and every molecule in them exploding at the speed of light.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 26 2009,18:46

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 25 2009,04:38)

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 24 2009,20:11)

Don't be sad. Whatever my size, I rely upon serious scholars of biological science - e.g. Ernst Mayr in the his 1982 masterwork The Growth of Biological Thought and Stephen Jay Gould in his The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, among others - for guidance regarding where to put my limited time and energy, not obtuse science deniers with zero credibility (you). Mayr, for example, summarized several facts of evolution...
....

In short, Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, Bateson and other saltationists are part of scientific history, obsolete for a half-century and longer, and no longer relevant to current thinking. I don't have time for that.

Well said and quoted, Bill. Here's more from Mayr on pages 530-531 that bears on your points:

Quote

In due time all theories defending orthogenesis were refuted, but this does not justify ignoring this literature. The major representatives of orthogenesis, whether paleontologists or other kinds of naturalists, were keen observers and brought together fascinating evidence for evolutionary trends and for genetic constraints during evolution. They were right in insisting that much of evolution is, at least superficially, "rectilinear.” In horses, the reduction of the toe bones and the changes in the teeth are well-known examples. In fact, the study of almost any extended fossil series reveals instances of evolutionary trends. Such trends are of importance to the evolutionist because they reveal the existence of continuities that are worth exploring, and have therefore been given much attention in the current evolutionary literature.

Trends may have a dual causation. On the one hand they may be caused by consistent changes of the environment, such as the increasing aridity of the subtropical and temperate zone climate during the Tertiary. This set up a continuing selection pressure which resulted in the toe and tooth evolution of the horses. A response to such a continuing selection pressure is what Plate had in mind when he introduced the term “orthoselection” (1903). On the other hand, trends may be necessitated by the internal cohesion of the genotype which places severe constraints on the morphological changes that are possible. Hence, evolutionary trends are readily explained within the explanatory framework of the Darwinian theory and do not require any separate “laws” or principles.

This book was published in 1982. How well does recent evidence fit? It seems to me that there is mounting evidence against the "explanatory framework of the Darwinian theory".

I've already predicted several times that - as evidence mounts - gradualistic mechanisms will fall by the wayside.

We'll see...

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 26 2009,18:54

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:10)

That is his choice.

If he wants to "teach the controversy", it's time for him to put up what he believes to be the case. What he should describe is what his version has or does with respect to:

1: Evidence

2: Predictions

3: Repeatability

4: Falsification

Those all, and if you know more Louis let's have them, need to be shown by Daniel if he wants anyone to take him seriously.

Right now Daniel, here's a hint. All you have is a postulate. You believe that life came about in some certain manner. That's it. Can you take it higher?

I'm guessing you've not read most of what I've posted since coming here in September of 2007 - since you seem to be trying to lump me into some generic "ID" category.

I'm not claiming my views are "science" for starters. They're just my views - based on theology, personal experience, science, bias, etc.

I'm not advocating "teaching the controversy" nor am I attempting to hide my Christianity in a scientific theory.

I'm just here to discuss my thoughts.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

Posted: Feb. 26 2009,18:59

Quote (JAM @ Feb. 26 2009,16:28)

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,19:24)

This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think?

It seems very messy to me, but then I do biology for a living. Since you think it's so neat and tidy, why don't you become a biologist and show us how neat and tidy it is?

Quote

A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.

It doesn't just fall into place. It evolves.

Quote

So, do you think evolution normally works this way?

No, you nincompoop. The norm is that it doesn't work this way, and you don't see the failures because they are selected against.

This is a fundamental concept that you fail to grasp.

Quote

It sure seems a lot more like the "unfolding of pre-existing rudiments" than "selection acting on random variation" - wouldn't you say?

Nope. I wouldn't say that the selection is acting on "random variation," as the variation is only random wrt fitness. Why do you keep using that tired old straw man?

Do you even know what I was referring to in those quotes JAM?

Why did you snip out all the relevant context?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance." Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question." Richard Dawkins

JAM

Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

Posted: Feb. 26 2009,19:02

Back to the original point...

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:31)

Quote (JAM @ Jan. 26 2009,13:45)

(feel free to move this to the Bathroom Wall, but I hope it's specific enough to stand alone)

On his blog, Daniel Smith offered a tasty slice of arrogance.

I'd like to go through it point by point, to show that what Dan is doing is (quite dishonestly) presenting his assumptions as facts. His bar is so high because it is supported with lies.

However, his assumptions are testable predictions of a scientific "Hypothesis of Impossibility."

So, will Dan test his inadvertent hypotheses or simply assert that he is right? Or will he simply assert that we are bad?

Passing by his initial red herrings for the hypotheses, here goes...

Quote

In E. coli, (one of the simplest unicellular lifeforms on the planet), the amino acids aspartic acid, asparagine, lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine are synthesized from the compound oxaloacetate via a series of biochemical steps - each of which requires its own unique enzyme, (remember?).

No, Dan, I don't remember that.

The reality here is that your hypothesis simply predicts that each biochemical step REQUIRES its own UNIQUE enzyme.

Is this prediction empirically true? Please define "requires" and "unique" before responding, and when you respond, man up and cite DATA. No passing the buck with quotes.

I got my information from my Biochemistry textbook JAM.

I don't believe you, Dan.

Quote

It states in the text that each step in this biochemical pathway is catalyzed by its own unique enzyme.

What it states is irrelevant. What matters is that you have a prediction here, and we should find out whether it is consistent with the data.

I realize that you want to pass the buck, but that's just more evidence of your fundamental dishonesty in these matters.

So, I'll ask again. Is each step in the biochemical pathway catalyzed by its own unique enzyme? What exactly do you mean by "unique" in this context anyway? Doesn't your implicit hypothesis clearly predict that the enzymes will not be related to each other?

Quote

I used the term "requires" because the present system requires those enzymes to work.

But if your goal is to assert that the present system could not have evolved from a past system that didn't require these allegedly unique enzymes, your point is moot.

Quote

If you're going to quibble about minutia, forget it. You know what I mean, you're just being petty.

I'm not being petty at all. Your hypothesis predicts that there will be unique enzymes. Is that true? It's really important if you give a damn.

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Feb. 26 2009,19:55

Thomas Cudworth (ignorant troll)

Were we to turn to any literature (something you are manifestly ignorant of) we can find all sorts of examples of shiteous species concepts leading to all sorts of deductive errors. i love that game. you picks a model, you takes what you gets.

unfortunately, playing that game with you would be much like playing chess with a tapeworm. or beating off with PVC cement. you offer nothing but a target for abuse. but i like kicking the shit out of tards. don't confuse being roundly abused with being wrong. you aren't even wrong, you say nothing.

By the way, Cuntsworth, you forgot, in your appeal to authority, that your species concept comes from genesis. give a shout out to moses, you dishonest cunt.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Reciprocating Bill

Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

Posted: Feb. 26 2009,20:13

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 26 2009,19:46)

This book was published in 1982. How well does recent evidence fit? It seems to me that there is mounting evidence against the "explanatory framework of the Darwinian theory".

I've already predicted several times that - as evidence mounts - gradualistic mechanisms will fall by the wayside.

We'll see...

Heh.

Half your argument is based on personal experiences and theological longings - good luck with that - and half on obsolete science and idiosyncratic seemings.

I think we should wrap this up.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

Albatrossity2

Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

Posted: Feb. 26 2009,21:05

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 26 2009,20:13)

Heh.

Half your argument is based on personal experiences and theological longings - good luck with that - and half on obsolete science and idiosyncratic seemings.

I think we should wrap this up.

I don't think we have enough wrapping paper to disguise the stink of this dead fish. Paley himself probably smells better than this.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
- Pattiann Rogers

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Feb. 26 2009,21:06

piss on it then

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Feb. 26 2009,21:45

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 27 2009,02:54)

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:10)

That is his choice.

If he wants to "teach the controversy", it's time for him to put up what he believes to be the case. What he should describe is what his version has or does with respect to:

1: Evidence

2: Predictions

3: Repeatability

4: Falsification

Those all, and if you know more Louis let's have them, need to be shown by Daniel if he wants anyone to take him seriously.

Right now Daniel, here's a hint. All you have is a postulate. You believe that life came about in some certain manner. That's it. Can you take it higher?

I'm guessing you've not read most of what I've posted since coming here in September of 2007 - since you seem to be trying to lump me into some generic "ID" category.

I'm not claiming my views are "science" for starters. They're just my views - based on theology, personal experience, science, bias, etc.

I'm not advocating "teaching the controversy" nor am I attempting to hide my Christianity in a scientific theory.

I'm just here to discuss my thoughts.

PREACHN' DOG DID IT AND EVOLUTION THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION DIDN'T ....IN OTHER WORDS

CASE CLOSED

NEXT

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

Posted: Feb. 27 2009,08:30

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 26 2009,18:54)

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:10)

That is his choice.

If he wants to "teach the controversy", it's time for him to put up what he believes to be the case. What he should describe is what his version has or does with respect to:

1: Evidence

2: Predictions

3: Repeatability

4: Falsification

Those all, and if you know more Louis let's have them, need to be shown by Daniel if he wants anyone to take him seriously.

Right now Daniel, here's a hint. All you have is a postulate. You believe that life came about in some certain manner. That's it. Can you take it higher?

I'm guessing you've not read most of what I've posted since coming here in September of 2007 - since you seem to be trying to lump me into some generic "ID" category.

I'm not claiming my views are "science" for starters. They're just my views - based on theology, personal experience, science, bias, etc.

I'm not advocating "teaching the controversy" nor am I attempting to hide my Christianity in a scientific theory.

I'm just here to discuss my thoughts.

I have read your stuff and quite frankly I don't see any theory. I see wishful thinking, tautological arguments and "I believe it to be" but no theories.

As for "lumping ID into a generic theory", aren't you even more a abuser of "lumping things together"? In creation circles, cosmology, stellar evolution, galactic evolution, planetary formation, abioginesis and evolution are all the same thing. You do know that they are different, right?

Even "evolution" has different components.

Now as you are saying that your views are not scientific but your views, that honest of you. Tell me then, why is your views and perception of how the world works any better than a devout Hindu and how his gods made it all?

Discussing ones thoughts is a noble pursuit. What is even more noble is learning from sources you don't agree and giving them a truly unbiased hearing even if it goes against one's personal dogma.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007