RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (36) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: From "LUCA" thread, Paley's Ghost can back up his assertions< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,16:31   

Okay, don't usually do this, but Prof. Syvanen expressly requested that troll-baiting not occur in the comments to his article about lateral gene transfer and LUCA on the Thumb. And I have been called a "fool" by a troll there named Paley's Ghost, who, if he should desire can use this space to put his money where his big mouth is.

Here was PG's theory <snicker> of gene transfer:
Quote
Evolutionists have always used the existence of the same genes in a variety of organisms as proof of their amoral ontology, but once again they have been disproved by real evidence. The genetic similarities that they use to build their anti-God “Tree of Life” represent nothing more than the fact organisms occasionally eat each other. If you eat steak and then some cow genes are in you, evolutionists think that proves you came from cows—what a bunch of stupid, amoral left-wing ideologues!


My reply was a dashed off suggestion that the effectiveness of parsimony analysis in constructing congruent phylogenies using different genes pretty much lays to rest the idea of "common design" or any such rejection of common descent as good evidence for evolution. (I also called his idea the "meat'n'potatoes" theory, and implied it was "stupid," so I asked for it)
And here is what I got:
Quote
Unlike fools like you who can barely comprehend high school algebra, you assume the only way for a creature to have a certain gene is for that creature to be related to another creature who has this gene. You’re committing the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You assume becuse there are puddles of water in the streets, it rained last night when what really happened was a bunch of commie hippies from the ACLU had an all night vigil in protest of their evolutionary lies challenged in public schools and peed on everything. Even techniques of mathematical analysis occasionally used by evolutionists show this not to be the case.

Charges of the fallacy of affirming the consequent are all the rage these days. It sure sounds impressive, but most often it's just waved around like it's a ticket to unassailability, as in "You're affirming the consequent. now you have to be quiet."

In this case, it's nonsense. I'm affirming that IF we assume that most instances of organisms sharing genes means the organisms also share ancestors, there are testable consequences, and that, further, parsimony analysis, used as a test, bears out the assumption.

There it is, for the record. So, Paley's Ghost, in the unlikely circumstance that you would have the slightest interest in backing up your lunatic ideas or your insults, here is a space in which you can do so.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,18:28   

"Paley's Ghost" strikes me as a way-over-the-top fake creationist. My bet is he [and the gender is almost certainly he] is a regular, evolution-accepting guy poking fun at creationists and/or evo-defenders he sees as taking it too seriously. That would be my bet.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2005,20:15   

I'd say the handle was a pretty good tip off.  I can't imagine that many creationist trolls are even aware of Paley or his philosophy, or that those who do would wish to purposefully link their cause to a two century old, thoroughly debunked philosophy.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,02:33   

Quote
Posted by Dave Cerutti on August 31, 2005 11:44 PM (e) (s)

Umm, you guys did realize from the name on my post that I was joking, right? Or shall I pull another admonitus and impersonate a creationist of some bizarre strain for many days before letting the cat out of the bag?


HA! Just as I suspected. Interesting, though. "Admonitus", if I recall correctly, threw in the spelling and grammar slips typical of creationists. Did "Paley's Ghost" consciously omit that, or did he just hastily fail to "reverse proofread"?

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,03:46   

Also -
"Paley's Ghost" didn't fool me for a moment. "Admonitus" took me a while. But "Salvador Cordova"! Brilliant! I bought that hook, line and sinker.

--------------
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,06:40   

More proof that you can't tell a creationist from a parody, I guess. I thought "Anti-God tree of life" was pretty over the top...

But I've seen some pretty over the top creationist nonsense, and being called a "fool" just made me want to provide some more rope for the auto-hanging.

#### good parody *tips hat*

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
Hyperion



Posts: 31
Joined: June 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2005,06:53   

Someone should do a study comparing the reading-difficulty scores, like Flesch-Kincaid, of actual creationist nonsense and the parodies.  I'd be curious to know if we're right that the parodies tend to use bigger words, better spelling, etc.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2005,12:57   

Quote (Hyperion @ Sep. 01 2005,01:15)
I'd say the handle was a pretty good tip off.  I can't imagine that many creationist trolls are even aware of Paley or his philosophy, or that those who do would wish to purposefully link their cause to a two century old, thoroughly debunked philosophy.

You claim Paley's philosphy is discredited? How? He merely stated the obvious. Living things are designed. This is as obvious as Aristotle's observation that gravity makes earth and water fall. Granted, Aristotle did not come up with the mathematics behind this process; Newton did. Likewise, Paley did not have a precise mathematcal formation of his ideas; this is what Dembski has provided. Stupid, immoral evolutionists like you deny the obvious. It is like attacking Newton's law of universal gravitation by saying things really don't fall, they only "Move how the random forces of natural selection push them," or some other such Darwinian rot.

Ignorant, evil evolutionists deny reality becuase deep in their hearts they know they will have to answer to God for their heinous misdeeds. I can't wait to watch him send you all to the Lake of Fire at the Final Judgment!

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2005,03:18   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 06 2005,17:57)
Ignorant, evil evolutionists deny reality becuase deep in their hearts they know they will have to answer to God for their heinous misdeeds. I can't wait to watch him send you all to the Lake of Fire at the Final Judgment!

Aw, c'mon, she is much nicer than that.  :D

--------------
If I fly the coop some time
And take nothing but a grip
With the few good books that really count
It's a necessary trip

I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket
The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,13:48   

C.J. O'Brien wrote

Quote
In this case, it's nonsense. I'm affirming that IF we assume that most instances of organisms sharing genes means the organisms also share ancestors, there are testable consequences, and that, further, parsimony analysis, used as a test, bears out the assumption.


That's just it, you merely assume that organisms sharing genes proves they share ancestors. That is precisely what Christians are challenging. It's just an assumption of stiff necked evolutionists--and your own words agree.

In a paper published in Trends in Plant Science1, several authors do an analysis of whole mitochondria genome-based phylogenies and get a tree that completly contardicts the tadiational evolution tree. As dogmatic evolutionists, they assume their new tree is wrong because it is inconcsistent with established Darwinian catechism. However, why should it not be. Any evolutionist can just do any test and come up with any kind of ancestry tree they feel like. All of the gene distributions are random from a point of view of common ancestry. However, the subtle and sophistaicated analysis of intellegent design theory shows each gene was put in for a specific purpose, and hence, demonstrates its design.

C.J. O'Brien likes to think I am a troll because he senses my intellgence is so vastly superior to his own.


Soltis, Douglas E., Albert, Victor A., Savolained, Vincent, Hilu, Khinder,Qiu, Yin-Long, Chase, Mark W., Farris, James S., Stephanovic, Sasa, Rice, Danny W., Palmer, Jeffry D., and Soltis, Pamela S. October 2004. Genome-scale data, angiospem relationships, and 'ending incongrunce': a cautionary tale in phylogenics. Trends in Plant Science Vol. 9 No. 10

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1357
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2005,20:34   

Superior intelligence, who can say without more evidence? Spelling's a bit weak though.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,14:54   

Please check figure 1 from this paper:Paley's Revenge

   Does this look familiar? It should, since this is from the evolution-smiting Naylor/Brown paper. Sorry Charlie, but the Chickens have come home to "sleep with the fishes"! And this from whole-genome mitochondrial DNA, so don't complain about small sample sizes... tap-dance all you want, but only a Dembski/Berlinski joint paper can begin to explain this curious incongruence, with a generous slice of my mathematical model (forthcoming). And while you're at it, please pity the poor urchins stranded among the chordates.
  Until Darwin-science can begin to address its failed predictions, Americans have every right to laugh this Lysenkoist pseudoscience out of the classroom.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,15:20   

Attn: Paley your link is broken, so yes it does look familiar just like Intelligent Design Creationism, there is nothing there.

Quote
Paley did not have a precise mathematcal formation of his ideas; this is what Dembski has provided.


Is PT still having a quote of the day?

Yep all of Dembski's predictions will come true.  Perhaps even, evolution's "Waterloo in Dover."  What projects are being undertaken by the Intelligent Design Creationist movement in regards to "junk DNA has a purpose."  Yep evolution is sure going to "lose."  Ya'll need to put up or shut up (and sidestepping peer-review doesn't cut it.)  Are you aware of the numerous times that junk science known as IDC has stepped into the legal arena to defeat the "darwinists?"  Are you aware that their record is worse than that of the Washington Generals?  When the time came for IDC to lay their cards down on the table, they were bluffing everytime.  Dover hasn't been any different, no matter how much your idol wished it otherwise and proclaimed it to be so.

Quote
Ignorant, evil evolutionists deny reality becuase deep in their hearts they know they will have to answer to God for their heinous misdeeds. I can't wait to watch him send you all to the Lake of Fire at the Final Judgment!


Sounds great so long as you bring the german potato salad (Hitler, Lenin and Lysenko love it.)  I wonder if they have muskie in the Lake of Fire, or perhaps--lungfish.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,15:44   

Sorry, the data say otherwise. The appelate courts can't overturn the results of the papers I've cited, no matter how badly they may want to. Darwinism is a bloated corpse floating in the aether, another failed "enlightenment" idea destined to be parroted in Feminist Studies workshops, and ignored by those who matter. I've been playing by your rules: can you?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,15:50   

No thanks. German potato salad leaves me bloated and flatulent, not unlike your attempts at a rebuttal.....................

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2005,16:02   

Was there a point to that post two above this?  Please elaborate, as I fail to see your point.  What is wrong with feminism, isn't it the Bible that makes all people equal and evolution that causes all the evil in the world such as racism and sexism?

Additionally, are you aware that WAD has ceased posting at PT to defend his ideas?  Could this be because they lambast his ummm...snicker..."precise mathematcal formation" to the extent that he only lurks and has ceased posting?  He much prefers to post on his own blog, deleting any comment that slightly dissents from his point of view.  Yep his "precise mathematcal formation" is so correct that he doesn't even have to defend it anywhere that he doesn't possess the ability to censor any dissent.

   
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,03:31   

Quote
Attn: Paley your link is broken, so yes it does look familiar just like Intelligent Design Creationism, there is nothing there.


Sorry, try this time.Paley's Revenge

In addition, this is not an intellegent design paper. It is from a paper peer reviewed by the commie evolutionist community!

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,04:19   

To clarify a previous post, I was just trying to reply to Saddlebred without using the quote feature. The point stands, however: Naylor, Brown, and Baptest have posed intractable problems for the Darwinian paradigm. The phylogenetic tree is rotten from the trunk to the tiniest stem. I could quote dozens of papers to show this, but if you refuse to see what's in front of your eyes, what good does it do? And are you really suggesting Figure 1 poses no problems for evolution? It might be time to take this horse to the glue factory...........

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1357
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,07:00   

Ghost of Paley

You're John A Davison and I claim my five pounds

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,09:50   

Quote
You're John A Davison and I claim my five pounds

I am not he, but merely a humble servant of God.
Quote
Please elaborate, as I fail to see your point.

 I empathise. I, too, spent many a year in the American public school system. ;)
Quote
Ya'll need to put up or shut up

  I have. Do you have anything to offer in return?

Quote
Additionally, are you aware that WAD has ceased posting at PT to defend his ideas?  Could this be because they lambast his ummm...snicker..."precise mathematcal formation" to the extent that he only lurks and has ceased posting?  He much prefers to post on his own blog, deleting any comment that slightly dissents from his point of view.  Yep his "precise mathematcal formation" is so correct that he doesn't even have to defend it anywhere that he doesn't possess the ability to censor any dissent.

 If this thread represents the typical argumentation proffered on this site, I REALLY empathize. Poor man.
Quote
What is wrong with feminism, isn't it the Bible that makes all people equal and evolution that causes all the evil in the world such as racism and sexism?

 Now you're getting it. If only the feminists could get it, instead of engaging in witchcraft, lesbianism, and Dungeons & Dragons. But I've come here to provide an education in science, not social studies. One subject at a time, Sea Biscuit.
 Focus, gentlemen.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1357
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,10:32   

Not JAD, I see that now. No mention of semi-meiosis.

I read the paper you linked to. Does not seem to be earth shattering, just suggesting a better approach to constructing the Tree of Life when using genomic analysis. Unless I'm missing something.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,11:56   

Quote
I read the paper you linked to. Does not seem to be earth shattering, just suggesting a better approach to constructing the Tree of Life when using genomic analysis. Unless I'm missing something.


I have cited other papers as well; I could cite dozens more. What constitutes a "good" approach to constructing your godless tree of life? Evolutionists merely take any data that conforms to their Darwinian catechism and reject the rest as being somehow inadequate. The "Tree of Life" is an evolutionistic fantasy construct. Intellegent Design theory explains the real reason life is as it is, and my orginal thesis that some genes wind up in other organisms because they eat each other is absolutely solid.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,12:43   

Paley:

Would you care to elaborate on your hypothesis that DNA ingested, and subsequently digested, by one organism somehow ends up in the germ cells of that organism?

I know I'm wasting my time engaging in discussions with someone so obviously ignorant of the simplest principles of biology, but hey -- it's a slow day at work.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,12:57   

Paley:

Wow. I just read the paper you linked to, and I'm trying to remember the last time I saw someone so completely misrepresent the content of a paper (I work for a law firm and read a lot of legal briefs, so it's not something I'm unfamiliar with).

I'd like to see your "dozens of papers" that show how the consensus phylogenetic tree is completely wrong. I wonder if you have any understanding at all of how phylogenetic trees are constructed by reference to independent evidence from multiple lines of research. I'm going to go way out on a limb and guess that the concept is entirely foreign to you.

It's fascinating to watch these ID apologists flail around with their wild-ass critiques of evolution.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,14:01   

Quote
I'd like to see your "dozens of papers" that show how the consensus phylogenetic tree is completely wrong.

Let's stick to the cited papers, please.

Quote
Wow. I just read the paper you linked to, and I'm trying to remember the last time I saw someone so completely misrepresent the content of a paper (I work for a law firm and read a lot of legal briefs, so it's not something I'm unfamiliar with).


 Ahhh, the scientists at Panda's Thumb have asked for scientific guidance from a lawyer. Why am I not surprised?  :p
 First, care to elaborate on my misrepresentations?  Since they are so abundant, the only hard part should be picking the most egregious one! Is Figure 1 not as I have described it in previous posts? And if it is, how is that ridiculous phylogeny acceptable under Darwinian assumptions? Talk about a big tent!
Quote
It's fascinating to watch these ID apologists flail around with their wild-ass critiques of evolution.

 So far the only flailing I've seen has been by my "critics". But I'm willing to hear you out. How are post-hoc adjustments (discarding third-codon positions from analyses, removing "problematic" taxa such as lamprey or lancelets since they lead to bad trees, etc) considered acceptable science?

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,14:19   

As a followup:
Quote
Would you care to elaborate on your hypothesis that DNA ingested, and subsequently digested, by one organism somehow ends up in the germ cells of that organism?

  Lynn Margulis (wife of Satan.....err....Sagan) has proposed the endosymbiotic theory to account for new genes/functions. This a just one germ digesting another. My theory, which proposes RNA transfer from digestive enzymes to germ cells via RAG recombination, is merely an extention of Margulis's concept. Granted, there are some minor details to be worked out, but that's why ID research is so crucial for the progress of science.
 My application of her concept to multicellular organisms reveals my willingness to seek truth wherever it might be - even from the wife of a Marxist.

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2005,15:53   

Paley:

Where did I say I was a lawyer?

You take a paper that points out some problems with relying on whole-genome comparisons of a small number of taxa in developing a phylogenetic tree, and try to stretch that to support the contention that the whole idea of a phylogenetic tree is fraudulent. That's what we in the business call "misrepresentation." Maybe even "fraudulent misrepesentation," if it can be shown that you knew your argument was wrong when you made it. So that you can get a clue as to how wrong you are, try following this link. If you weren't so wedded to your thesis that evolution is bunk, it would probably give you something to think about.

So your idea is that the simplest eukaryotes evolved to, e.g., primates based on horizontal gene transfer? Sounds like there are more than a few minor details to be worked out.

The funny thing, Paley, is that I have absolutely no training in the biological sciences at all, and yet even I can see where your arguments have gone completely off the tracks. It gives me some idea of how well your arguments would go over with real scientists.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,07:15   

Sorry for the delay, but I was wrapped up in my bible study groups. The stories I could tell of the horrors Evilution has wrought on people's lives! Well, on to the subject at hand.

 
Quote
Where did I say I was a lawyer?

 Where did you say you weren't? In the off chance you aren't, I apologize for the slander. :p
 
Quote
You take a paper that points out some problems with relying on whole-genome comparisons of a small number of taxa in developing a phylogenetic tree, and try to stretch that to support the contention that the whole idea of a phylogenetic tree is fraudulent.

 It ain't just one paper, hoss. It's the cumulative weight of many that leads to my eminently sane conclusion. But following my own advice, I'll stick to the current paper.
 It's true that the authors hypothesize that more taxa will solve the problem, but in the case of _animalia_, they don't support that raw speculation with any data, so I didn't mention it. Remember, I'm interested in data, not the tap-dancing of evolutionists. In addition, the author's conclusions conflict with others who assert that the number of characters is the most important component in any analysis.
Quote
So that you can get a clue as to how wrong you are, try following this link.

 Believe it or not, this source is nothing new to me. In fact, I've managed to come up with with some cogent criticisms in between my bible-thumping, synagogue-torching and all. Hint: Count how many proteins are used to support his consensus tree, and then contrast this with Wu 1991. More to come later......

--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,07:43   

Paley:

I wasn't aware that it was necessary for me to state that I'm not a lawyer. I thought that if I didn't claim to be a lawyer, it would be assumed that I'm not. You don't claim to be a scientist, so I don't assume you are one.

The cumulative weight of evidence is that the consensus phylogenetic tree is by and large accurate. Given the immense number of possible phylogenetic trees (for 30 taxa the number is on the order of ten to the thirty-eighth power), the fact that there's any consistency whatsoever in the trees derived from independent sources of evidence has to be seen as one of the crowning achievements of the human intellect. Your conclusion isn't sane; it's completely wacky.

Evidence from multiple confirming lines of research isn't "speculation," it's confirmation. If one line of evidence is in conflict with converging conclusions for the other ten or so lines of evidence, we can be reasonably certain that there's an error in the methodology. If you're using Cepheid variables to work out the hubble constant, and one Cepheid variable tells you that an obviously distant galaxy is located within the milky way, there's obviously something wrong with the distance value for that one star. This is elementary scientific methodology.

So I'm afraid one paper ain't gonna do it. One study that comes up with erroneous conclusions shows an error in the methodology, not an error in the theory. You're going to have to show me how the multiple lines of inquiry do not converge on one phylogentic tree, and I already know you can't do that.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2005,07:50   

Paley:

A couple more points. Pointing to numbers of proteins isn't going to get you far, because gene/protein analysis is only one of dozens of converging lines of evidence for the consensus phylogenetic tree. Citing protein-sequencing data from 1991 will get you even less far.

The exact configuration of the phylogenetic tree will probably never be established for every single organism (we don't even know how many species currently exist, let alone the immensely larger number that have ever existed), given the astronomical numbers of possible trees. Pointing to this or that controversy as to where exactly a given organism gets slotted into the organizational structure will get you exactly nowhere. When you can find a bat that is more closely related to birds using more than just protein analysis than it is to other mammals, then you'll be getting somewhere.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
  1058 replies since Aug. 31 2005,16:31 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (36) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]