RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (341) < ... 276 277 278 279 280 [281] 282 283 284 285 286 ... >   
  Topic: UnReasonable Kansans thread, AKA "For the kids"< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,17:38   

Quote (argystokes @ July 09 2008,17:31)

Hey, Argy, I know this TBW stuff here, but my brother and I are coming out to Seattle again this August if you, Mrs. Argy, and maybe Mr. Pinhead want to get together for drinks/dinner.

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3324
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,17:39   

Quote (Doc Bill @ July 09 2008,17:35)
When FtK goes to Oklahoma the average IQ of both states increases.

Hmm, should I kick your ass myself or should I just sic ERV on ya?  Decisions, decisions......

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it.  We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,18:02   

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,16:30)
Sure, I'll get the book when I have time.  Rather enjoyed Shubin's "Your Inner Fish".

But, bear in mind that I can tell good stories like that too.   Kinda reminds me of the crap they use to postulate about the coelacanth.

Stories are fine.  I'm all for telling them, and they could very well be accurate in many instances, but just don't present them as fact (like Zimmer does in the quote above).

It's not just a good story, FtK.  Zimmer is a good writer of course and his book was written for the lay audience (it's a companion to the PBS series Evolution).  However, at the end of that passage Zimmer specifically notes that the good story "is documented with fossils."  

Lungfish, another "living fossil" with lungs, is considered to be a close relative of early tetrapods on the basis of morphology.  A few years ago paleontologists discovered a fossil sarcopterygian fish that looks like the latest common ancestor of lungfishes and tetrapods.  

Just a story?  Only if you want to dismiss it out of hand.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4484
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,18:06   

Quote (midwifetoad @ July 09 2008,17:36)
Quote
Think whatever you like, but I'm not lying.  Have you ever seen flood geology or age of the earth issues covered in Dembski/Johnson/Behe books regarding design?


I would start with Dembski's Mere Creation in which he welcomes young earth creationists to the fold and says solidarity in the war against materialism is more important than deciding whether the earth is 6000 or four billion years old. He has repeated this recently on his blog.

Now if you see nothing ironic about a mathematician who doesn't care to distinguish between 6000 and four billion, I'd say you need serious help.

That's only a matter of about 9 centi-dembskis error.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,18:10   

Hey, I lived in Oklahoma for 17 years and all my kids are Okies.

Also, I have a valid Oklahoma Satire License.

You know, I've tried to be nice to FtK and where has it gotten me?

Flounced every time.

It's an addiction I tell you, an addiction!  There she is in her white t-shirt, unfiltered Camels rolled in her sleeve, tin of Copenhagen in her rear pocket, sucking down the last suds of a Bud Light (longneck), sun glinting on her mullet as she toys playfully with her braided rat tail.

Just as I'm ready to make my move, though, all eyes turn to the door.  In walks Walt Brown, all ripped and six-pack abs, sporting the hugest hydroplate you've ever seen and it's all I can do is scuttle back into the corner, out of the light.

FtK, in rapture, whispers into Walt's ear, "Say something scientific, big guy."

Walt fixes her gaze with his and barely audible says, "Pi equals three."

Then, arm in arm, they walk out the door and the last picture I have is of that Copenhagen can moving up and down, up and down, up and down.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3558
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,18:17   

I'm familiar with the acronym "FTA" from my time as a draftee, but what is "FTK"? Something from WWI?

--------------
”let’s not make a joke of ourselves.”

Pat Robertson

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,18:34   

Quote (Doc Bill @ July 09 2008,18:10)
Hey, I lived in Oklahoma for 17 years and all my kids are Okies.

Also, I have a valid Oklahoma Satire License.

You know, I've tried to be nice to FtK and where has it gotten me?

Flounced every time.

It's an addiction I tell you, an addiction!  There she is in her white t-shirt, unfiltered Camels rolled in her sleeve, tin of Copenhagen in her rear pocket, sucking down the last suds of a Bud Light (longneck), sun glinting on her mullet as she toys playfully with her braided rat tail.

Just as I'm ready to make my move, though, all eyes turn to the door.  In walks Walt Brown, all ripped and six-pack abs, sporting the hugest hydroplate you've ever seen and it's all I can do is scuttle back into the corner, out of the light.

FtK, in rapture, whispers into Walt's ear, "Say something scientific, big guy."

Walt fixes her gaze with his and barely audible says, "Pi equals three."

Then, arm in arm, they walk out the door and the last picture I have is of that Copenhagen can moving up and down, up and down, up and down.

Dude, I don't have a braided rat tail.  You must be confusing me with someone else...though the rest of the story would probably be fairly accurate.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,18:47   

Seriously, FtK, that cracked me up!

You should give up science and stick to comedy.  You'd be a laff riot.  Really, you could make some money doing a creationist schtick at AAAS dinners.

"Give up science."  That was a joke, hon.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,18:48   

Ftk - describe how the following research and discoveries would have been motivated and the results interpreted from the perspective of "common design" and/or Walt Brown's addlepate vision of a young earth.  From the website Genetic Anthropology about a year ago:

New Discoveries From Ethiopia Fill Major Gap In Fossil Record (7/12/2007)

Scientists working in the Woranso-Mille area of the Afar Region, Ethiopia, have recovered fossils that may prove to be a bridge to establishing a relationship between the earlier Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 - 3.9 million years) and the later Australopithecus afarensis (3 - 3.6 million years) early human species.

Researchers have hypothesized an ancestor-descendant relationship between these two species based on their similarities. However, until now, there has been no hominid fossil record from the 3.6 - 3.9 million years time frame to determine this relationship. According to project co-leader Dr. Yohannes Haile-Selassie, curator and head of physical anthropology at The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, his team's 2007 field season in the Woranso-Mille study area was unusually successful and uncovered key physical evidence.

"We recovered fossil hominids that date to between 3.5 and 3.8 million years ago,"¯ said Haile-Selassie. "These specimens sample the right time to look into the relationship between Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis and will play a major role in testing the ancestor-descendant hypothesis."¯ The project team found isolated teeth from this time frame during its earlier field seasons. However, during the 2007 field season, they recovered more complete jaws that are important to conduct comparative analysis.

At least 40 hominid specimens have been recovered thus far, including a number of complete jaws found in 2007, and a partial skeleton found in 2005. These join the more than 1,900 vertebrate fossil specimens discovered in four consecutive field seasons in the Woranso-Mille area. A total of more than 35 mammalian species in more than 20 genera have been sampled to date.

Introduction

The Afar Depression of Ethiopia has yielded early hominid fossil remains spanning the last 6 million years. This has placed Ethiopia in the forefront of paleoanthropology, the study of human physical and cultural evolution. Ethiopia is known to the world as the cradle of humankind, with a minimum of 12 early human species known from the country, including the earliest hominid Ardipithecus kadabba at 5.8 million years ago, and Homo sapiens idaltu, the earliest anatomically modern human at 160,000 years ago. For the last four decades, numerous local and foreign scientists have carried out fieldwork in the Afar region, searching for fossil remains of the earliest human ancestors. Major areas that have been extensively explored, and have yielded early hominid fossil remains include Hadar, Middle Awash, Gona, and Dikika, all located in the Afar Regional State. The Afar region still has unexplored areas of paleoanthropological interest. As a result, new exploratory programs are being developed and new paleontological sites identified.

The Woranso-Mille project, led by Drs. Yohannes Haile-Selassie and Bruce Latimer of The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio, United States, has been conducting its paleoanthropological research in the central Afar area since 2003. This area was identified as a result of survey and exploration conducted in 2002. The Woranso-Mille Project is a multinational and multidisciplinary project and has thus far conducted four consecutive field seasons within the Mille-Chifra-Kasagita Triangle. Members of the project include scientists from The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, the Addis Ababa University, Case Western Reserve University, and Berkeley Geochronology Center.

The Site

The Woranso-Mille paleontological site is located in the central Afar area in the Mille and Chifra districts of Zone 1 of the Afar Regional State. The study area is defined by the towns of Mille, Chifra, and Kasagita. In this study area, a total of 29 vertebrate localities have been designated thus far. Major fossiliferous areas are divided into propers, with a number of localities designated within each proper. The Aralee Issie, Mesgid Dora, and Makah Mera propers are located on the north side of the Mille River, and comprise a total of 11 designated localities. Additional localities on the north side of the Mille River are Godaya, Harabi, Am-Ado, and Lehaytu Gera. On the south side of the Mille River, major fossiliferous localities are designated in the areas locally known as Korsi Dora, Burtele, Nefuraytu, Leado Dodo'a, and Leadu.

The Fossil Discoveries

A total of 1,900 vertebrate fossil remains have been collected from the study area since 2003. Project leader Haile-Selassie states that these fossils represent diverse animals ranging from small mammals, such as mice, to large ones, such as elephants. Carnivores, monkeys, and bovids, are among the most abundant groups. However, other taxa, such as primitive horses, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, crocodile, and fish are also present. A total of more than 35 mammalian species in more than 20 genera have been sampled to date. The total number of fossil remains of early hominids discovered from the site is relatively small, as in other hominid-bearing sites in Ethiopia and elsewhere. However, at least 40 hominid specimens have been recovered thus far, including a number of complete jaws and one partial skeleton, which was found in 2005. The excavation of this partial skeleton is still under way.

Age of the Fossils

Preliminary radiometric dates for some volcanic layers in the study area, bracketing most of the fossiliferous horizons, range from 3.5 to 3.8 Ma. Project Geochronologist Dr. Alan Deino explains that these dates are based on single-crystal dating of K-feldspar bearing tuffs found within the stratigraphic succession and incremental heating of samples of basaltic lava. These preliminary radiometric dates agree well with biostratigraphic age estimates of 3.6 to 3.8 Ma. This shows that the Woranso-Mille succession is much older than Hadar, where the oldest deposits are 3.4 million years old. Hadar is renowned in the field of paleoanthropology, as most of the Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy's species) fossil specimens were discovered there. Woranso-Mille localities are slightly younger than the 4 million year old Asa Issie (Middle Awash), where remains of Australopithecus anamensis have been recently described by the Middle Awash project. The Woranso-Mille study area has some of the few (probably the best) known hominid-bearing exposures sampling the time between 3.5 and 3.9 million years ago. The area also samples vertebrate fossils from horizons that are younger and older than this time range, extending into the late Miocene.

Significance of the hominid fossils

The fossil hominids from the Woranso-Mille area sample a time period that is poorly known in human evolutionary studies. An outstanding question in the study of early human evolution, says Haile-Selassie, relates to the relationship between the earlier Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 - 3.9 million years) and the later Australopithecus afarensis (3 - 3.6 million years). Researchers have hypothesized an ancestor-descendant relationship between these two species based on their similarities. However, there has been no fossil record from the 3.6 - 3.9 million years time frame thus far to test, confirm, or falsify this relationship. Haile-Selassie adds that the fossil hominids from the Woranso-Mille study area dated to between 3.5 and 3.8 million years ago sample the right time and play a major role in testing the hypothesis with fossil data. The Woranso-Mille fossil hominids from the deposits younger than 3.5 million years extend the geographic distribution of Australopithecus afarensis further to the north of Hadar, where the species is best documented.

Future Prospects

The paleontological significance of the Woranso-Mille study area has been demonstrated by the discovery of more than 1,900 vertebrate fossil specimens in three years of fieldwork. These fossils include a number of hominid remains from different time horizons. However, the study area has not been fully explored. Preliminary survey in some areas shows that there are fossiliferous deposits as old as 5 million years ago. However, the project has not yet intensively concentrated on these areas. During the coming field seasons, the Woranso-Mille project plans to systematically collect more fossils from already designated vertebrate localities and to find new areas with fossils of older age.

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

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

  
celdd



Posts: 18
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,18:54   

Quote
Sure, I'll get the book when I have time.  Rather enjoyed Shubin's "Your Inner Fish".

But, bear in mind that I can tell good stories like that too.  

So, FTK, you consider all the science (evidence) related by Shubin in his book “Your Inner Fish” as merely a story?  That’s pretty condescending to all the hundreds of thousands of scientists that have studied and worked so hard over the last 150 years.

It’s interesting that you can so easily dismiss the relationships observed in anatomy across living species, the sequence of features among species observed through time in the fossil record, and the chemical and molecular relationships among species as he so eloquently presented and explained throughout his book.  

Why doesn’t ID provide an equally elegant explanation of these observations?  Why does no one in the ID movement try?  Do you deny the observed relationships exist?

Is your position that God did it step by step by step? And that makes more sense to you?

Seriously, I would be interested in seeing your thoughts on “Your Inner Fish.”

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,18:56   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 09 2008,18:48)
Ftk - describe how the following research and discoveries would have been motivated and the results interpreted from the perspective of "common design" and/or Walt Brown's addlepate vision of a young earth.  From the website Genetic Anthropology about a year ago:

New Discoveries From Ethiopia Fill Major Gap In Fossil Record (7/12/2007)

Scientists working in the Woranso-Mille area of the Afar Region, Ethiopia, have recovered fossils that may prove to be a bridge to establishing a relationship between the earlier Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 - 3.9 million years) and the later Australopithecus afarensis (3 - 3.6 million years) early human species.

Researchers have hypothesized an ancestor-descendant relationship between these two species based on their similarities. However, until now, there has been no hominid fossil record from the 3.6 - 3.9 million years time frame to determine this relationship. According to project co-leader Dr. Yohannes Haile-Selassie, curator and head of physical anthropology at The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, his team's 2007 field season in the Woranso-Mille study area was unusually successful and uncovered key physical evidence.

"We recovered fossil hominids that date to between 3.5 and 3.8 million years ago,"¯ said Haile-Selassie. "These specimens sample the right time to look into the relationship between Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis and will play a major role in testing the ancestor-descendant hypothesis."¯ The project team found isolated teeth from this time frame during its earlier field seasons. However, during the 2007 field season, they recovered more complete jaws that are important to conduct comparative analysis.

At least 40 hominid specimens have been recovered thus far, including a number of complete jaws found in 2007, and a partial skeleton found in 2005. These join the more than 1,900 vertebrate fossil specimens discovered in four consecutive field seasons in the Woranso-Mille area. A total of more than 35 mammalian species in more than 20 genera have been sampled to date.

Introduction

The Afar Depression of Ethiopia has yielded early hominid fossil remains spanning the last 6 million years. This has placed Ethiopia in the forefront of paleoanthropology, the study of human physical and cultural evolution. Ethiopia is known to the world as the cradle of humankind, with a minimum of 12 early human species known from the country, including the earliest hominid Ardipithecus kadabba at 5.8 million years ago, and Homo sapiens idaltu, the earliest anatomically modern human at 160,000 years ago. For the last four decades, numerous local and foreign scientists have carried out fieldwork in the Afar region, searching for fossil remains of the earliest human ancestors. Major areas that have been extensively explored, and have yielded early hominid fossil remains include Hadar, Middle Awash, Gona, and Dikika, all located in the Afar Regional State. The Afar region still has unexplored areas of paleoanthropological interest. As a result, new exploratory programs are being developed and new paleontological sites identified.

The Woranso-Mille project, led by Drs. Yohannes Haile-Selassie and Bruce Latimer of The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio, United States, has been conducting its paleoanthropological research in the central Afar area since 2003. This area was identified as a result of survey and exploration conducted in 2002. The Woranso-Mille Project is a multinational and multidisciplinary project and has thus far conducted four consecutive field seasons within the Mille-Chifra-Kasagita Triangle. Members of the project include scientists from The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, the Addis Ababa University, Case Western Reserve University, and Berkeley Geochronology Center.

The Site

The Woranso-Mille paleontological site is located in the central Afar area in the Mille and Chifra districts of Zone 1 of the Afar Regional State. The study area is defined by the towns of Mille, Chifra, and Kasagita. In this study area, a total of 29 vertebrate localities have been designated thus far. Major fossiliferous areas are divided into propers, with a number of localities designated within each proper. The Aralee Issie, Mesgid Dora, and Makah Mera propers are located on the north side of the Mille River, and comprise a total of 11 designated localities. Additional localities on the north side of the Mille River are Godaya, Harabi, Am-Ado, and Lehaytu Gera. On the south side of the Mille River, major fossiliferous localities are designated in the areas locally known as Korsi Dora, Burtele, Nefuraytu, Leado Dodo'a, and Leadu.

The Fossil Discoveries

A total of 1,900 vertebrate fossil remains have been collected from the study area since 2003. Project leader Haile-Selassie states that these fossils represent diverse animals ranging from small mammals, such as mice, to large ones, such as elephants. Carnivores, monkeys, and bovids, are among the most abundant groups. However, other taxa, such as primitive horses, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, crocodile, and fish are also present. A total of more than 35 mammalian species in more than 20 genera have been sampled to date. The total number of fossil remains of early hominids discovered from the site is relatively small, as in other hominid-bearing sites in Ethiopia and elsewhere. However, at least 40 hominid specimens have been recovered thus far, including a number of complete jaws and one partial skeleton, which was found in 2005. The excavation of this partial skeleton is still under way.

Age of the Fossils

Preliminary radiometric dates for some volcanic layers in the study area, bracketing most of the fossiliferous horizons, range from 3.5 to 3.8 Ma. Project Geochronologist Dr. Alan Deino explains that these dates are based on single-crystal dating of K-feldspar bearing tuffs found within the stratigraphic succession and incremental heating of samples of basaltic lava. These preliminary radiometric dates agree well with biostratigraphic age estimates of 3.6 to 3.8 Ma. This shows that the Woranso-Mille succession is much older than Hadar, where the oldest deposits are 3.4 million years old. Hadar is renowned in the field of paleoanthropology, as most of the Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy's species) fossil specimens were discovered there. Woranso-Mille localities are slightly younger than the 4 million year old Asa Issie (Middle Awash), where remains of Australopithecus anamensis have been recently described by the Middle Awash project. The Woranso-Mille study area has some of the few (probably the best) known hominid-bearing exposures sampling the time between 3.5 and 3.9 million years ago. The area also samples vertebrate fossils from horizons that are younger and older than this time range, extending into the late Miocene.

Significance of the hominid fossils

The fossil hominids from the Woranso-Mille area sample a time period that is poorly known in human evolutionary studies. An outstanding question in the study of early human evolution, says Haile-Selassie, relates to the relationship between the earlier Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 - 3.9 million years) and the later Australopithecus afarensis (3 - 3.6 million years). Researchers have hypothesized an ancestor-descendant relationship between these two species based on their similarities. However, there has been no fossil record from the 3.6 - 3.9 million years time frame thus far to test, confirm, or falsify this relationship. Haile-Selassie adds that the fossil hominids from the Woranso-Mille study area dated to between 3.5 and 3.8 million years ago sample the right time and play a major role in testing the hypothesis with fossil data. The Woranso-Mille fossil hominids from the deposits younger than 3.5 million years extend the geographic distribution of Australopithecus afarensis further to the north of Hadar, where the species is best documented.

Future Prospects

The paleontological significance of the Woranso-Mille study area has been demonstrated by the discovery of more than 1,900 vertebrate fossil specimens in three years of fieldwork. These fossils include a number of hominid remains from different time horizons. However, the study area has not been fully explored. Preliminary survey in some areas shows that there are fossiliferous deposits as old as 5 million years ago. However, the project has not yet intensively concentrated on these areas. During the coming field seasons, the Woranso-Mille project plans to systematically collect more fossils from already designated vertebrate localities and to find new areas with fossils of older age.

Oh, well shit.  Now, you're going to go and make me think again.  The rest of these bozos are easy prey, but you post lengthy crap that I have to dissect and actually do a little bit of thinking.

Sigh...

I haven't even read through the whole thing yet, so give me some time - a week perhaps...maybe less. ;)

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,19:13   

Quote
So, FTK, you consider all the science (evidence) related by Shubin in his book “Your Inner Fish” as merely a story?  That’s pretty condescending to all the hundreds of thousands of scientists that have studied and worked so hard over the last 150 years.


Hon, he postulates how hernias, hiccups, and snores evolved from freaking fish.  Come on.  As far as the tiktaalik find, sure, nice theory based on historical inference and bone fragments.  Interesting, but that book is certainly steaming from the piles of speculation found within it.  

Quote
It’s interesting that you can so easily dismiss the relationships observed in anatomy across living species, the sequence of features among species observed through time in the fossil record, and the chemical and molecular relationships among species as he so eloquently presented and explained throughout his book.


Mindset.  As soon as 'ol Darwin postulated his theory, naturalists interpreted the evidence to fit their philosophical leanings.  No different than Creation scientists interpreting the evidence to fit to their historical accounts of creation in the book of Genesis.

Quote
Why doesn’t ID provide an equally elegant explanation of these observations?  Why does no one in the ID movement try?  Do you deny the observed relationships exist?


Elegant?  Eye of the beholder.  Why would someone in the ID movement try?  ID = design detection.  The theory itself doesn't comment on common descent.  You'll have to leave that to the creation scientists and they've covered that...albeit not to your philosophical liking.  Do I deny that observed relationships exist?  Certainly not....I think I made that clear and explained why even the most ardent 6 day creationist would agree with that statement in my initial post last night.

Quote
Is your position that God did it step by step by step?


No.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,19:30   

Quote
ID = design detection


And then what (he asks, not really expecting an answer)?

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,19:31   

FtK said
Quote
Oh, well shit.  Now, you're going to go and make me think again.  The rest of these bozos are easy prey, but you post lengthy crap that I have to dissect and actually do a little bit of thinking.

Sigh...

I haven't even read through the whole thing yet, so give me some time - a week perhaps...maybe less.

Methinks the problem is more mundane: there's nothing at Creation Science about this new discovery yet.  So let's wait for a week.  Or maybe the famed scientist Luskin will post something.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,19:38   

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,18:56)
The rest of these bozos are easy prey, but you post lengthy crap that I have to dissect and actually do a little bit of thinking.

Hon, don't kid yourself. You can't handle the short questions, or the long ones.

Here's a refresher, which you seem to be ignoring, from this comment upthread.

Just to save you the trouble of clicking on that link, here's the part you've failed to address.

What is the evidence that common design is a better paradigm than common descent for a modern biological scientist?  My evidence is numbers of papers published and numbers of new products or treatments. Your evidence is ????????

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

   
Chayanov



Posts: 289
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,19:40   

Quote
Methinks the problem is more mundane: there's nothing at Creation Science about this new discovery yet.  So let's wait for a week.  Or maybe the famed scientist Luskin will post something.


Or the post will get buried in the thread, where it can be conveniently ignored.

--------------
Help! Marxist literary critics are following me!

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,19:44   

Quote
Hon, he postulates how hernias, hiccups, and snores evolved from freaking fish.  Come on.  As far as the tiktaalik find, sure, nice theory based on historical inference and bone fragments.  Interesting, but that book is certainly steaming from the piles of speculation found within it.


Hey, Hon, I've got that book, too, and Shubin doesn't speculate.  Maybe you have a reading comprehension problem particular to dumb bunnies, or maybe you don't have the book.

Shubin traces the nerves from fish to human.  No speculation.  He also discusses the embryology.  Remember that part?  Oh, Hon, I know, remembering so hard.  The little nervies in the fish are the same ones in your spine that make you hic-hic-hic after you snarf down a chicken fried steak with extra gravy and a couple of Buds.

No speculation. Everything in Inner Fish is backed up by observation and, dare I say it, evidence.

Of course, don't worry your pretty little head about all this science stuff.  Just remember that Pi equals three, and LOL.  TTFN.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,19:47   

Quote (Chayanov @ July 09 2008,20:40)
Quote
Methinks the problem is more mundane: there's nothing at Creation Science about this new discovery yet.  So let's wait for a week.  Or maybe the famed scientist Luskin will post something.


Or the post will get buried in the thread, where it can be conveniently ignored.

I'll bump it from time to time. Like this.

Ftk, as you read the article keep this in mind:

The scientific object of keen interest to many biologists, and probably everyone posting here, is exactly the origins and history of the biological diversity we observe today. The structure of that history, both in broad outline and with respect to the development of high resolution histories of particular species (including our own), IS the object of that science. Moreover, the question of whether that history reflects common design or common descent is no undecidable, abstract philosophical question. Rather, there is a particular set of facts that obtained during that history, those facts had empirical consequences - in the distribution of features observed within extant species, within the fossil record, and within the the distribution of features found within the genomes of all living organisms - and evolutionary science is all about developing and attaining an integrated conceptual understanding of those empirical facts. Models premised upon common descent provide both deep predictive guidance for investigation into those empirical facts and an overarching conceptual framework in light of which those facts may be understood. Progress within that field is both breathtaking and accelerating, and integrates beautifully with and derives synergy from the findings within other sciences, e.g. geology.

Common design, which postulates that a designer planted species throughout history like a gardener placing garden gnomes, forces the conclusion that species bear NO relationship to one another - hierarchical, historical, or otherwise (yeah yeah, "microevolution," blah blah blah). Within the "framework" of common design, a fish is no more or less related to a terrestrial vertebrate than it is to a rose. Common design provides no guidance for empirical work either in the lab or in the field, has no predictive power, is absolutely silent and completely useless in the context of developing high resolution models of the histories of specific biological groups, and offers no connections to the other sciences.

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

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

  
Timothy McDougald



Posts: 1008
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,20:44   

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,18:56)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ July 09 2008,18:48)
Ftk - describe how the following research and discoveries would have been motivated and the results interpreted from the perspective of "common design" and/or Walt Brown's addlepate vision of a young earth.  From the website Genetic Anthropology about a year ago:

New Discoveries From Ethiopia Fill Major Gap In Fossil Record (7/12/2007)

Scientists working in the Woranso-Mille area of the Afar Region, Ethiopia, have recovered fossils that may prove to be a bridge to establishing a relationship between the earlier Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 - 3.9 million years) and the later Australopithecus afarensis (3 - 3.6 million years) early human species.

Researchers have hypothesized an ancestor-descendant relationship between these two species based on their similarities. However, until now, there has been no hominid fossil record from the 3.6 - 3.9 million years time frame to determine this relationship. According to project co-leader Dr. Yohannes Haile-Selassie, curator and head of physical anthropology at The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, his team's 2007 field season in the Woranso-Mille study area was unusually successful and uncovered key physical evidence.

"We recovered fossil hominids that date to between 3.5 and 3.8 million years ago,"¯ said Haile-Selassie. "These specimens sample the right time to look into the relationship between Australopithecus anamensis and Australopithecus afarensis and will play a major role in testing the ancestor-descendant hypothesis."¯ The project team found isolated teeth from this time frame during its earlier field seasons. However, during the 2007 field season, they recovered more complete jaws that are important to conduct comparative analysis.

At least 40 hominid specimens have been recovered thus far, including a number of complete jaws found in 2007, and a partial skeleton found in 2005. These join the more than 1,900 vertebrate fossil specimens discovered in four consecutive field seasons in the Woranso-Mille area. A total of more than 35 mammalian species in more than 20 genera have been sampled to date.

Introduction

The Afar Depression of Ethiopia has yielded early hominid fossil remains spanning the last 6 million years. This has placed Ethiopia in the forefront of paleoanthropology, the study of human physical and cultural evolution. Ethiopia is known to the world as the cradle of humankind, with a minimum of 12 early human species known from the country, including the earliest hominid Ardipithecus kadabba at 5.8 million years ago, and Homo sapiens idaltu, the earliest anatomically modern human at 160,000 years ago. For the last four decades, numerous local and foreign scientists have carried out fieldwork in the Afar region, searching for fossil remains of the earliest human ancestors. Major areas that have been extensively explored, and have yielded early hominid fossil remains include Hadar, Middle Awash, Gona, and Dikika, all located in the Afar Regional State. The Afar region still has unexplored areas of paleoanthropological interest. As a result, new exploratory programs are being developed and new paleontological sites identified.

The Woranso-Mille project, led by Drs. Yohannes Haile-Selassie and Bruce Latimer of The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio, United States, has been conducting its paleoanthropological research in the central Afar area since 2003. This area was identified as a result of survey and exploration conducted in 2002. The Woranso-Mille Project is a multinational and multidisciplinary project and has thus far conducted four consecutive field seasons within the Mille-Chifra-Kasagita Triangle. Members of the project include scientists from The Cleveland Museum of Natural History, the Addis Ababa University, Case Western Reserve University, and Berkeley Geochronology Center.

The Site

The Woranso-Mille paleontological site is located in the central Afar area in the Mille and Chifra districts of Zone 1 of the Afar Regional State. The study area is defined by the towns of Mille, Chifra, and Kasagita. In this study area, a total of 29 vertebrate localities have been designated thus far. Major fossiliferous areas are divided into propers, with a number of localities designated within each proper. The Aralee Issie, Mesgid Dora, and Makah Mera propers are located on the north side of the Mille River, and comprise a total of 11 designated localities. Additional localities on the north side of the Mille River are Godaya, Harabi, Am-Ado, and Lehaytu Gera. On the south side of the Mille River, major fossiliferous localities are designated in the areas locally known as Korsi Dora, Burtele, Nefuraytu, Leado Dodo'a, and Leadu.

The Fossil Discoveries

A total of 1,900 vertebrate fossil remains have been collected from the study area since 2003. Project leader Haile-Selassie states that these fossils represent diverse animals ranging from small mammals, such as mice, to large ones, such as elephants. Carnivores, monkeys, and bovids, are among the most abundant groups. However, other taxa, such as primitive horses, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, crocodile, and fish are also present. A total of more than 35 mammalian species in more than 20 genera have been sampled to date. The total number of fossil remains of early hominids discovered from the site is relatively small, as in other hominid-bearing sites in Ethiopia and elsewhere. However, at least 40 hominid specimens have been recovered thus far, including a number of complete jaws and one partial skeleton, which was found in 2005. The excavation of this partial skeleton is still under way.

Age of the Fossils

Preliminary radiometric dates for some volcanic layers in the study area, bracketing most of the fossiliferous horizons, range from 3.5 to 3.8 Ma. Project Geochronologist Dr. Alan Deino explains that these dates are based on single-crystal dating of K-feldspar bearing tuffs found within the stratigraphic succession and incremental heating of samples of basaltic lava. These preliminary radiometric dates agree well with biostratigraphic age estimates of 3.6 to 3.8 Ma. This shows that the Woranso-Mille succession is much older than Hadar, where the oldest deposits are 3.4 million years old. Hadar is renowned in the field of paleoanthropology, as most of the Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy's species) fossil specimens were discovered there. Woranso-Mille localities are slightly younger than the 4 million year old Asa Issie (Middle Awash), where remains of Australopithecus anamensis have been recently described by the Middle Awash project. The Woranso-Mille study area has some of the few (probably the best) known hominid-bearing exposures sampling the time between 3.5 and 3.9 million years ago. The area also samples vertebrate fossils from horizons that are younger and older than this time range, extending into the late Miocene.

Significance of the hominid fossils

The fossil hominids from the Woranso-Mille area sample a time period that is poorly known in human evolutionary studies. An outstanding question in the study of early human evolution, says Haile-Selassie, relates to the relationship between the earlier Australopithecus anamensis (4.2 - 3.9 million years) and the later Australopithecus afarensis (3 - 3.6 million years). Researchers have hypothesized an ancestor-descendant relationship between these two species based on their similarities. However, there has been no fossil record from the 3.6 - 3.9 million years time frame thus far to test, confirm, or falsify this relationship. Haile-Selassie adds that the fossil hominids from the Woranso-Mille study area dated to between 3.5 and 3.8 million years ago sample the right time and play a major role in testing the hypothesis with fossil data. The Woranso-Mille fossil hominids from the deposits younger than 3.5 million years extend the geographic distribution of Australopithecus afarensis further to the north of Hadar, where the species is best documented.

Future Prospects

The paleontological significance of the Woranso-Mille study area has been demonstrated by the discovery of more than 1,900 vertebrate fossil specimens in three years of fieldwork. These fossils include a number of hominid remains from different time horizons. However, the study area has not been fully explored. Preliminary survey in some areas shows that there are fossiliferous deposits as old as 5 million years ago. However, the project has not yet intensively concentrated on these areas. During the coming field seasons, the Woranso-Mille project plans to systematically collect more fossils from already designated vertebrate localities and to find new areas with fossils of older age.

Oh, well shit.  Now, you're going to go and make me think again.  The rest of these bozos are easy prey, but you post lengthy crap that I have to dissect and actually do a little bit of thinking.

Sigh...

I haven't even read through the whole thing yet, so give me some time - a week perhaps...maybe less. ;)

Another good one to illustrate the point would be this one

Quote
Well-constrained estimates of adult body mass for species of fossil platyrrhines (New World
‘‘monkeys’’) are essential for resolving numerous paleobiological questions. However, no
consensus exists as to which craniodental measures best correlate with body mass among extant
taxa in this clade. In this analysis, we analyze 80 craniodental variables and generate predictive
equations applicable to fossil taxa, including the early platyrrhine Chilecebus carrascoensis.
We find mandibular length to be the best craniodental predictor of body mass. There is no
significant difference in predictive value between osteological and dental measures. Variables
associated with the mandible and lower dentition do significantly outperform the cranium and
upper dentition. Additionally, we demonstrate that modern platyrrhines differ, morphometrically,
from early fossil forms. Chilecebus possesses unusual cranial proportions in several key features, as
well as proportionally narrow upper incisors and wide upper cheek teeth. These variables yield
widely divergent body mass estimates for Chilecebus, implying that the correlations observed in a
crown group cannot be assumed a priori for early diverging fossils. Variables allometrically
consistent with those in extant forms yield a body mass estimate of slightly less than 600 grams for
Chilecebus, nearly a factor of two smaller than prior preliminary estimates.
Scaled to body mass, the brain of Chilecebus is markedly smaller than those of modern
anthropoids, despite its lowered body mass estimate advocated here. This finding, in conjunction
with a similar pattern exhibited by fossil catarrhines, suggests that increased encephalization arose
independently in the two extant subgroups of anthropoids (platyrrhines and catarrhines).


Or maybe this one on the evolution of the parathyroid gland given her statements about the evolution of organs and organ systems.

--------------
Church burning ebola boy

FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.

PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,21:09   

Quote
Or maybe this one on the evolution of the parathyroid gland given her statements about the evolution of organs and organ systems.


More just-so stories like Rocky the Flying Squirrel.

I saw NO MENTION of a Vapor Canopy in that article!

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,21:19   

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,19:13)
Mindset.  As soon as 'ol Darwin postulated his theory, naturalists interpreted the evidence to fit their philosophical leanings.

Your ignorance of history is apparently as deep as your ignorance of biology. This statement is demonstrably untrue, as you would know if you had ever bothered to read a history of 19th century science, or anything outside of Walt Brown and AiG.

The time between the publication of the Origin of Species and the re-discovery of Mendel's work at the end of the 19th century was filled with lots of criticism of Darwin by leading scientists. Some of this is chronicled in popular books such as David Quammen's The Reluctant Mr. Darwin, but is also to be found in any decent history of science. This "eclipse" period, contrary to the delusions of folks like FtK, was a time of incredible criticism and response by Darwinists and anti-Darwinists alike. The criticism was not restricted to clergymen, but included famous scientists like His and Virchow. Even Alfred Russell Wallace, the co-discoverer of evolutionary theory, broke with Darwin over the question of whether human consciousness and human origins could be explained by evolution. The scientific world, like always, reacted with skepticism AND with experiments and interpretation, to the work of Darwin.

More importantly, and relevant to the other discussions in this benighted thread, scientists whose criticisms were based partially on theological considerations (ala FtK, except for the scientist part), failed to make scientific progress for the most part. His developed a theory of embryological development, in opposition to the phylogenetically based theory of Haeckel and Darwin, that was a dead end. Experiments based on the hypothesis of common descent led to progress in embryology and other areas.

When De Vries and others re-discovered Mendel's work, and developed theories that finally provided a mechanism (there's that word again, Ftk) that could explain descent with modification, the ever-pragmatic scientific community finally became more and more convinced of the utility and the elegance of Darwin's evolutionary theory.

There are several lessons here, FtK. Science works by experiment, not by mere words. There was never a drastic switch by "materialists" to fit the evidence to their philosophy; scientists followed the evidence, even if it didn't always jibe with their religious or philosophical leanings. And finally, common descent, as an explanatory paradigm, proved to be superior to the previously accepted notion of creation, or what you have labeled common design. Scientific progress was made more rapidly under that assumption; progress under old failed assumptions ground to a halt.

Read some history when you can; it might even be more beneficial than reading some biology.

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 8897
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,21:24   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 28 2007,11:57)
*Don't read that like I'm also a biologist. I do the Jokes KE turns down.

Wow.

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,21:27   

"Read"

There's that word again.

I read recently that Bigfoot migrated from Roswell to Oregon over a 40 year period.  Yes, there are clear Bigfoot prints at various locations across New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada, California and Oregon.  It's theorized that this Bigfoot creature survived the 1947 Roswell crash, as reported by many witnesses, and made his/its way through the wilderness to a cooler, wetter climate closer to the environment of his/its natural planet.

Bigfoot is not only one of its kind but the last of its kind.  It knows the "scientific" treatment it will get if captured and, thus, keeps low to the ground.

I'm sure Walt Brown has a take on Bigfoot but I suspect old Walt is down at Lifetime pumping iron.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,21:35   

[quote]What is the evidence that common design is a better paradigm than common descent for a modern biological scientist?  My evidence is numbers of papers published and numbers of new products or treatments. Your evidence is ???????? [quote]

Um, I don't believe my point was that common design is a *better* paradigm than common descent.  My assertion was that science would not have been hindered if the simliarities we observe in nature today had been considered part of the design paradigm rather than due to common descent.  The important discoveries science has made were due to simliarities between organisms, not the conclusion that everything in nature stems from a common blob.  

Why are all scientific papers based on common descent?  Because it was deemed "fact" early on, and everyone based their evolutionary scenarios on that ideology.  Like I said, if common design had been the basis for similiarities and differences between organisms, our charts would differ somewhat from what we see today, but there would be no reason for science to have suffered as observations and predictions would still be readily accessible under the design paradigm.

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2779
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,21:41   

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,21:35)
Um, I don't believe my point was that common design is a *better* paradigm than common descent.  My assertion was that science would not have been hindered if the simliarities we observe in nature today had been considered part of the design paradigm rather than due to common descent.  The important discoveries science has made were due to simliarities between organisms, not the conclusion that everything in nature stems from a common blob.  

Why are all scientific papers based on common descent?  Because it was deemed "fact" early on, and everyone based their evolutionary scenarios on that ideology.  Like I said, if common design had been the basis for similiarities and differences between organisms, our charts would differ somewhat from what we see today, but there would be no reason for science to have suffered as observations and predictions would still be readily accessible under the design paradigm.

All delusional, all opinions. In the second half of the 19th century, science based on common design assumptions (and hindered by theological objections) faltered; science based on common descent progressed. Intelligent scientists are attracted to what works. No ideology involved.

See my latest comment above for the evidence.

Good night.

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

   
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,21:41   

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,21:35)
[quote]What is the evidence that common design is a better paradigm than common descent for a modern biological scientist?  My evidence is numbers of papers published and numbers of new products or treatments. Your evidence is ???????? [quote]

Um, I don't believe my point was that common design is a *better* paradigm than common descent.  My assertion was that science would not have been hindered if the simliarities we observe in nature today had been considered part of the design paradigm rather than due to common descent.  The important discoveries science has made were due to simliarities between organisms, not the conclusion that everything in nature stems from a common blob.  

Why are all scientific papers based on common descent?  Because it was deemed "fact" early on, and everyone based their evolutionary scenarios on that ideology.  Like I said, if common design had been the basis for similiarities and differences between organisms, our charts would differ somewhat from what we see today, but there would be no reason for science to have suffered as observations and predictions would still be readily accessible under the design paradigm.

Is this what such a classification would look like?

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 1005
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,21:50   

Quote
Why are all scientific papers based on common descent?  Because it was deemed "fact" early on, and everyone based their evolutionary scenarios on that ideology.  Like I said, if common design had been the basis for similiarities and differences between organisms, our charts would differ somewhat from what we see today, but there would be no reason for science to have suffered as observations and predictions would still be readily accessible under the design paradigm.


Total bullshit.  Bullshit, FtK, is making stuff up which you do all the time.  Who "deemed,"  hmmmmm?  Tell me, FtK, who, what agency, name a person, place or thing who "deemed" common descent a fact.

Name one.

This paragraph is totally Dumb Bunny Stupid.

Get some ice cream and watch some Lifetime TV which is about your level.

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,22:02   

Quote (Doc Bill @ July 09 2008,21:50)
Quote
Why are all scientific papers based on common descent?  Because it was deemed "fact" early on, and everyone based their evolutionary scenarios on that ideology.  Like I said, if common design had been the basis for similiarities and differences between organisms, our charts would differ somewhat from what we see today, but there would be no reason for science to have suffered as observations and predictions would still be readily accessible under the design paradigm.


Total bullshit.  Bullshit, FtK, is making stuff up which you do all the time.  Who "deemed,"  hmmmmm?  Tell me, FtK, who, what agency, name a person, place or thing who "deemed" common descent a fact.

Name one.

This paragraph is totally Dumb Bunny Stupid.

Get some ice cream and watch some Lifetime TV which is about your level.

ZING!!!!!

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Ftk



Posts: 2239
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,22:17   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ July 09 2008,21:41)
   
Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,21:35)
Um, I don't believe my point was that common design is a *better* paradigm than common descent.  My assertion was that science would not have been hindered if the simliarities we observe in nature today had been considered part of the design paradigm rather than due to common descent.  The important discoveries science has made were due to simliarities between organisms, not the conclusion that everything in nature stems from a common blob.  

Why are all scientific papers based on common descent?  Because it was deemed "fact" early on, and everyone based their evolutionary scenarios on that ideology.  Like I said, if common design had been the basis for similiarities and differences between organisms, our charts would differ somewhat from what we see today, but there would be no reason for science to have suffered as observations and predictions would still be readily accessible under the design paradigm.

All delusional, all opinions. In the second half of the 19th century, science based on common design assumptions (and hindered by theological objections) faltered; science based on common descent progressed. Intelligent scientists are attracted to what works. No ideology involved.

See my latest comment above for the evidence.

Good night.

Dave, all drastic theories such as Darwin's go through a time of upheaval, but naturalists went nuts for this particular scenario because it excluded the designing aspect of life.  Huxley, et. al. went ape shit over the theory.  From what I understand, there were as many scientists supporting the theory as there were against it....even from the start.  

When the hunt for transitionals went into high speed, there was no turning back.  Hierarchy charts were based on "common descent" rather than merely charting "simliarities and differences".

We see an upheavel occuring again as ID is breaking it's way into the scientific community and evolutionists are coming to the realization that their theory is inadequate in explaining our existence.  

Don't believe me?......Consider the upcoming meeting of "The Altenberg 16"

--------------
"Evolution is a creationism and just as illogical [as] the other pantheistic creation myths"  -forastero

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4238
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 09 2008,22:21   

Quote (Ftk @ July 09 2008,22:35)
My assertion was that science would not have been hindered if the simliarities we observe in nature today had been considered part of the design paradigm rather than due to common descent.  The important discoveries science has made were due to simliarities between organisms, not the conclusion that everything in nature stems from a common blob.  

Why are all scientific papers based on common descent?  Because it was deemed "fact" early on, and everyone based their evolutionary scenarios on that ideology.  Like I said, if common design had been the basis for similiarities and differences between organisms, our charts would differ somewhat from what we see today, but there would be no reason for science to have suffered as observations and predictions would still be readily accessible under the design paradigm.

Don't just shoot your mouth off. Read the article I posted. It isn't long, it isn't technical and it is directly on point. Then describe how you think the research reported could have arisen from the notion of "common design."

Specifically, in the example I cited, the question of a specific ancestor-decendent (or perhaps second or third "cousin") relationship between a particular pair of hominid species is inextricable from the larger notion of the radiation of related hominid species and the resulting distribution of features both geographically and over geological time. These relationships are not postulated and accepted on "faith"; rather the hypothesized relationships, coupled with a detailed understanding of Ethiopian geology, directly guided years of difficult field work, dictating the geological contexts and time horizons explored and the specimens sought and recovered. Moreover, the specimens recovered in turn provide direct empirical tests of those hypothesized relationships, and the results of those tests will guide further arduous fieldwork over the coming years. In short, this isn't matter of scientists arbitrarily and passively "interpreting the evidence" (that's the job of creationists of all stripes). This is hard, expensive fieldwork that consumes years of these investigators' lives, driven by and only comprehensible within the framework of common descent.

Now describe how this work would be conducted from an assumption of "common design" or, worse, common design coupled with the assumption of a young earth. Where would the investigators look? Why? How would they organize the specimens upon which they stumble? Why?

[more edits for clarity]

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

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

  
  10200 replies since Mar. 17 2007,23:38 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (341) < ... 276 277 278 279 280 [281] 282 283 284 285 286 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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