RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (23) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >   
  Topic: AF Dave Has More Questions About Apes, Creation/Evolution Debate< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 17 2006,23:02   

Afdave is showing off his amazing faith. Since I feel that he just waisted our time, asking to be educated and then revealing he is just here to preach, I feel we need to test Dave on the claim that he is indeed a Christian and not just someone who is fooling us.

I am also fedup with his arrogance.

My test, from the very Book that Dave adores.

"Luke 6:30: Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again."

Dave, send me all your money please. Thanks.

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,03:14   

Chimps and Humans

This is interesting. Now the fundies are REALLY going to fume.

  
qetzal



Posts: 308
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,03:23   

Quote (sir_toejam @ May 17 2006,22:32)
I will put money on Dave thinking he is "winning" because we insult him so.

takers?

Easy bet - I'm in for $20. After all, it's abundantly clear that afdave isn't thinking at all.

You can donate my winnings to Panda's Thumb. ;)

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,03:46   

Well Dave, I'm glad my last remark got you worked up enough to finally do what you should have done all that time: Check the links we provide.
Although I don't think it did you any good... You copy-pasted it alright, but as for actually reading it (let alone addressing it), well...
First, an irrelevant and unwarranted assumption (that that specific deletion was that broke the gene) you think is important- much like the 100% simillarity demand you made earlier- to establish common descent, then the usual beating about the bush, failing to address what the lesson demonstrates and we repeatedly explained you: the overall striking resemblance between the broken parts of the GULO gene among primates, that clearly point to a single breaking event in the past.
Oh, and a nice display of argument shifting: First you claim that the pseudogene might not be broken, but have an as yet unknown function. When we show to you how this is not possible, you start claiming that the gene broke independently in primates like in guinea pigs: And when we show you how this is an illogical assumption, you start claiming it's not broken again, as if it was never refuted.

But... I see that others have had the patience to explain all this to you, in detail, all over again. Not that that will stop you from ignoring the explanations again, I s'pose.

Dave, you pretty much lost my attention when you admitted that you're here as an apologetic (and complimented us for "figuring it out"!)- it was then that I fully realized the obvious: You are not here to have a scientific discussion; you don't even know (or care) what science is: For you, the idea of these debates is like something out of the chick tracts you give your children to read. You as the calm voice of Faith and Righteousness, your opponent a screaming blabbering caricature, and everyone around gaping in awe as the Truth™ is finally revealed to them through your overwhelming words (with god's help of course, we're not arrogant, no sir, arrogance is a sin). Every notion, every argument, every word that does not fit into this pattern is immediately filtered out; you disregard it as irrelevant, or simply ignore it. Like all the evidence for an old earth you are about to deny out of existence, it just cannot be.

Now, of course, is the time for your textbook comeback: "It's not me, it's you evilutionists that do this, because so and so"... Nevermind, Dave. We both know that it's you who tries to interpret every part of reality according to his beliefs. You will never admit it (on this forum, at least), but you are fully aware of that little soothing voice inside your head that keeps whispering "don't think, believe". And you accept it as a good thing. Just remember that we know about it, too. So, if prosyletizin' is your thing, like you admitted, go find an audience more "worthy" of it- and leave us poor sinners alone. We are beyond your "salvation".
If you persist on remaining, however, please feel free to use my post as quoting material, to be able to answer again while avoiding to address all the explanations given to you so far. Consider this a parting gift on my behalf.
As a matter of fact, here's some more:

What was this thread about again? Oh right, humans and chimps... Well, dave, you may be happy to know that it seems there are many facts about the human-primate divergence that us Nazi evilutionists havent gotten straighten outen yet. That's what this new study from MIT might suggest. Emphasis on "might", though, because the data and conclusions are already disputed (and I mean actual scientific dispute, not creo mumbo-jumbo), but there's a chance scientists have got a few things wrong here...


...Just not wrong in the way you'd like.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
Renier



Posts: 276
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:05   

From Faid's article.

Voting booth:
How do you regard theories of hominid evolution?  
* 100970 responses

I think there's sufficient evidence tracing the evolutionary family tree of primates and humans.
67%

I don't accept any evidence that humans arose through evolution.
22%

Neither of the above.
11%

Just interesting. Science is not about voting.

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:16   

BWE said ... [quote] Also, I can run faster, jump higher and screw better than you can. [/quote]

Eric, Chris, Jeannot, Incorygible, Norm, Qetzal (others also)... I truly admire all of you for your knowledge of your field and your ability to express your thoughts matter-of-factly (even though I disagree with you).  (End serious comment, begin sarcasm) I also wanted to highlite some of the abilities of one of your team members.  These abilities may come in handy in a future debate.  Just kidding.  Don't worry.  I really don't lump you in with anyone else, and my judgment of your character has nothing to do with my judgment of anyone else's ... I just saw a chance for a joke.  I wouldn't want people lumping me in with certain other YECs.  As for BWE, I congratulate you.  I have been insulted a lot of different ways, some creative, some boring.  I have to say that this one takes the cake as the most innovative I have ever heard.  If you tell me your mailing address, I would like to send you a certificate for "Most Creative Insult of All Time."  I will be interested to see if you or anyone else can top this one in the future :-)

[quote]Also, I assume you don't believe that humans once had a tail although you think that the monkape kind either evolved one or lost one. [/quote]

If it was one original kind, then there would originally have been a tail and it would have been lost over time.  Creationism predicts the loss of function, not gain.  There may, however, have been a separate monkey kind and an ape kind.

 
Quote
Science itself is evolutionary and a thousand wrong ideas are tested before we hit on ideas that work. So, if there were an ID research program I wouldn't object. What I object to is the fact that they're faking having any  research program and instead spending millions on PR and lawyers and think tanks that  invent ways to lie and distort.
Science is not evolutionary because it is directed by intelligence.  I am glad that you would support an ID Research Program.  ID has to spend millions on PR to even get any research off the ground to see if there is support for this promising theory.  

     
Quote
You're an arrogant SOB, you know that, Dave?  From whence this audacity to dictate OUR roles in educating YOU in the absolute absence of any effort on your part?  See above.
Look, Incorygible.  I'm a businessman with a science/engineeering background and a financial contributor to causes, I'm politically involved, I'm an apologist for YEC, and I'm a little bit like an investigative reporter at the moment.  If you don't want to accept the role of "Evolution Apologist" and jump on the opportunity to make your theory look plausible to an outsider, then don't.  No one is making you.   The ape/human questions and the Creation/Evolution controversy are absolutely to vital to society.  I'm spending 4+ hours a day on this effort. You can't say I'm not putting in any effort.  Now, if you don't like your role, then you don't have to assume it.  On the other hand, if you want to stick around and not get mad, you might have some fun. Others have said they are having fun.  You can too.  By the way, I have encountered scientists who seem very resentful of businessmen in general because they feel that businessmen "use" them for their own purposes.  Do you feel this way?  The truth is that both businessmen and scientists are necessary.  Businessmen need scientists to invent and discover new things.  Scientists need businessmen to market their innovations.   And by the way, apologists and politicians are necessary too.  Your side has a famous apologist in Richard Dawkins.  Why shouldn't our side have some too?

     
Quote
It is a "huge undertaking" to understand volume upon volume, journal upon journal, paper upon paper of published, peer-reviewed science, Dave.  Takes decades of full-time devotion.  In light of that, your observation, your opinion of "burdens", and the roles you have set out are anything but "honest".
Again, scientists do much wonderful work.  Where they go wrong is when they write volume after volume of speculation about how the immune system might have evolved and similar things.  They would be much more productive if they hypothesized that it was designed and studied it from that perspective.

     
Quote
So you recognize the huge undertaking to become knowledgeable in this subject, but think you can have it for free.  I would have suspected you'd have come across the term "no free lunch" in your IDiot meanderings, Dave.  In this case, however, it actually applies.
I understand there is no free lunch.  I was born in poverty and have worked very hard to be where I am now.  No one asked you for a free lunch.  Some of you act as if I am asking you to give me a biology degree for free or something. Again, I am basically a YEC apologist and an investigative reporter asking for a convincing story.  If you don't want to give it, then you don't have to.  If I were in your shoes, though, I would want to try to give a convincing one.

     
Quote
No.  You are looking at one small region of the gene.  The deletion may have broken the gene.  It may not have.  Other mutations could have occurred before, and others since.  We've shown you the exact nature of the mutations that we see now.  We've pointed you in the direction of references where you can find out more.
 Exactly.  So Faid was making an assumption when he told me that the deletion in his article is the cause of broken GULO.

AF Dave said ...        
Quote
3)  You are assuming that this "deletion" is in fact a deletion.  The word deletion implies that it was there at one time in history and now is not due to a mutation.  I think you base your idea that it is a deletion by comparing it to rat GULO.  A tempting comparison and I do see your logic, but how is this conclusive?  An interesting experiment in this regard would be to delete the "C" in question in the rat GULO, then see if rat Vitamin C production ceases.  Has this been done?  Is it even possible?  How about inserting a "C" into some ape GULO, then seeing if Vitamin C production commences?  I did read the Rat/GP/Trout experiment and it is interesting, but does this prove that the "C deletion" is definitely the cause of non-functionality?


Incorygible said ...        
Quote
Yes, Dave, it's all been done.  We can easily knock out vitamin C production by breaking rat GULO in any way you desire.  No functioning gene -> no functioning protein -> no vitamin C synthesis.  This is basic.  Look at the medical literature.  That Ha et al. (2004) paper I referenced earlier is titled "Functional rescue of vitamin C synthesis deficiency in human cells using adenoviral-based expression of murine L-gulono-gamma-lactone oxidase" (Genomics 83:483-492).  They took murine (rat/mouse) GULO, spliced it into human liver cells via a virus (we do this all the time, Dave), and those cells began synthesizing Vitamin C.  I've already told you this.


Incorygible, that's not the same thing ... read my quote again.  I asked if anyone has knocked out the "C" in rat GULO at the position indicated in Faid's article which I quoted.  You responded by saying "Yes, we spliced rat GULO into a human and it worked."  Hello?  That wasn't what I asked.  It's not the same thing.

     
Quote
If someone wanted to tell you how wrong you are about how to fly planes, and they didn't even know basic things about lift, stalls, air pressure, and when you tried to explain the basics they just kept telling you how wrong you were, wouldn't you be a little intrigued?
Yes.  But I wouldn't get mad.  I'd just think it was funny.  The fact that people get mad about this stuff is interesting to me.  Why do they?  Oh, I know all the superficial reasons ... I'm thick headed, etc.  But it seems like there must be a more basic reason for the frustration.

     
Quote
And besides, if it's not your goal to present positive evidence about the Creationist view, why did you waste several hundred words on your "Creator God Hypothesis" (which, let the record show, you have not yet supported with any positive evidence)? If you weren't going to support it, why did you even bring it up, and waste our time waiting under the misapprehension that you were going to try to support it?
Absolutely.  On that thread, not this one.  This thread is all about "Ape Questions" and seeing what your answers are to those questions.  I have given excellent positive evidence on my other thread for the existence of God, and will over time give much evidence for all the things I said I would.  I know some don't accept my evidence so far, but I cannot help that. All I can do is give it.

     
Quote
Dave, you're simply not equipped to evaluate the evidence in favor of evolution. That's been pointed out to you innumerable times. No one here is under the slightest obligation to educate you on that evidence.
I agree with you.  I am not equipped.  This is why I am giving evolutionary biologists the chance to speak for themselves and explain why their theory is plausible.  If they cannot do this, who can?  I understand that no one is under any obligations here.  There are certain roles, though, and I can tell you that I am certainly not going to assume the role of 'Evolution Apologist.'  So that leaves the job to either you guys or else no one at all. I think people here rightly want to try to answer these questions as best they can because they truly believe in their theory.  And it is important to them for others to understand and agree with this theory.  We all want people to agree with out theories.

     
Quote
Explain to me why "downward evolution" is predicted by Creationism. How does this follow from the idea that God created everything? Is his creation so defective that everything eventually breaks down and collapses?
It is predicted in Genesis and is known as the "Curse."  Yes.  Everything in this world has been cursed because of sin, and God will RE-create the world at some point in the future.  Of course, I cannot prove this last piece to you scientifically, but I can show you that the Bible is both reliable and supernaturally originated.  Then it is but a small step of faith to believe the unverifiable stuff.

     
Quote
2) To talk about a "seamless fossil record" versus ubiquitous gaps is a demonstration of  your ignorance of what the fossil record is. Fossils happen rarely and not all fossils have been found. What you don't believe in here is  called a "transitional fossil."
OK.  Fair enough.  Let's use your term.  Evolution predicted many transitional fossils and now that the evidence is coming in, there have been only a handful of equivocal ones.

     
Quote
The convergence for this deletion may not be unlikely, but primates share dozen mutations. And these mistakes in the broken GULO produce the same phylogeny built with other working genes. This cannot have happened by chance. Would you drop this argument?
Why would I drop the argument if you agree with me that the deletion is not unlikely?

     
Quote
And what does "upward evolution mean"?
The evidence shows that there is no such thing, but Evolutionists wish there were.  To me it means addition of wings where there were no wings before, addition of eyes where there were no eyes before, etc.  The reverse happens a lot, however.  Organisms lose function quite often and Creationists predict that this will continue until the time that the Creator RE-creates all things.

     
Quote
Even so, bacteria have developed the ability to digest nylon. They didn't have that ability in the past. It's new. We can identify the pre-existing genes that were co-opted to achieve this. Isn't this "upward" evolution by your definition? Does it disprove Creationism?
I do know there are a few mutations that could be construed as "upward" or "increased or new function."  Do you know of many like this?  To disprove Creationism, it would take a multitude of  mutations like this.  And by multitude, I mean thousands or even millions.

     
Quote
Your "ubiquitous gaps" are gradually disappearing. Isn't that evidence against Creationism?
To say that the gaps are disappearing is sort of like saying that you are well on your way to emptying Lake Superior because you have removed 10 buckets full of water.

     
Quote
Let's simplify. Is there any conceivable objective observation (or combination thereof) that could disprove Creationism? If so, please explain.
Yes.  There are many possible ways to disprove Creationism, and evolutionists have been hoping for years that just such evidences would come to light as more is known.  They just haven't yet.  The opposite is actually happening.

     
Quote
But how much has the Bible changed to reflect more recent observation, Dave? Has it changed much in the last thousand years? Science gets better all the time. Religion stays the same, getting left further and further behind every year.
It hasn't changed, unless you are talking about the equivocal "Apocrypha."  Or maybe you are referring to modern Bible translations?  Translations are not changes.  The translators typically work from the original Greek and Hebrew to make their translations.  I don't know about religion.  I'm not a religionist.  I'm interested in truthful science of which the Bible and a God Hypothesis are a legitimate part.

Renier said ...        
Quote
Afdave is showing off his amazing faith. Since I feel that he just waisted our time, asking to be educated and then revealing he is just here to preach, I feel we need to test Dave on the claim that he is indeed a Christian and not just someone who is fooling us.  Chimps and Humans -- This is interesting. Now the fundies are REALLY going to fume.


Renier, my friend, you're back!  You were the one (I think) that gave me the idea to start this thread.  Wasn't it you that said you used to be a YEC, but abandoned the position because of the Vitamin C issue?  Well, as I hope you have seen, there are many assumptions here and I think you were too quick to abandon your position.  I read your new article about Chimps and Humans, but it does not look as interesting as the Vitamin C issue.

***************************************************************

So there you have it.  We're on page 16 of this thread, and there has been some very good discussion.  After all of this, of the two possible scenarios that I mentioned ...
     
Quote
Scenario 1-The GULO gene could have broken independently in apes and in humans. The Inai article shows that it did indeed break independently in guinea pigs, so why should it not break independently in apes and humans?       OR ..

Scenario 2-The "broken" GULO gene was never a functional GULO gene in either apes or humans.  It always has had some unknown function and still does to this day.  Argystokes called this possibility "pseudo-GLO" and rightly asserted that we should be able to find this gene's homologue throughout the animal kingdom--even in animals that do have a functional GULO gene.

it seems that Scenario 1 is the most likely, although who knows what will turn up as more is known about "pseudo-genes."

I have confirmed my suspicion that Dr. Max's assumptions are not necessarily warranted, although I would not go so far as to say they are wild assumptions.

It is clear to me that the theory that apes and humans had a common ancestor, while it has some apparent support, is by no means a closed case, and there is plenty of evidence supporting Common Design Theory as well.  I don't think we can 'prove' either one of them.  And if I were in Renier's shoes, I certainly would not have abandoned the YEC position because of this issue.

So, as you probably expected would happen, my position remains that Apes are Apes, and Humans are Humans, and as far as anyone really knows for sure, it's always been that way.

Thanks for your participation!  I have nothing further to add on this thread.  If anyone wants to keep going, by all means, go ahead.  But I have completed what I set out to do.

I will now spend all my time presenting evidence for a Creator God, a Young Earth, the Global Flood, the accuracy of the Bible, etc. etc. on my other thread.

Thanks again.

AF Dave.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:32   

Quote
Exactly.  So Faid was making an assumption when he told me that the deletion in his article is the cause of broken GULO.


afdave, please point me to the post in which I claimed that that particular C deletion was the cause of the loss of the gene's function.

Otherwise, please retract your claim and all assumptions derived from it.

Thanks in advance.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:32   

Quote
Look, Incorygible.  I'm a businessman with a science/engineeering background
Translation: I have an engineering degree.

   
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:39   

Quote
ID has to spend millions on PR to even get any research off the ground to see if there is support for this promising theory.


How is PR a requirement for starting research?

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:40   

Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,09:16)
If it was one original kind, then there would originally have been a tail and it would have been lost over time.  Creationism predicts the loss of function, not gain.  There may, however, have been a separate monkey kind and an ape kind.

Okay...we're pretty much in agreement here.  So since we have the EXACT same evidence (and note that the "prediction" of loss of function isn't it) that humans lost their tails in the same way as apes, then might we predict that Adam and Eve had a tail?  (If not, why not?)  Furthermore, given that whole "in His image" thing, might this imply that God has a tail?  Cool!

(Might be better to invoke your ambiguity and fall back on that separate monkey-kind thing!;)

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:47   

One of the PTers calculated one time how much research the Discovery Institute could do if they put their PR money into research, and actually had a scientific program which produced results at the rate ordinary science does. IIRC, it was enough to fund about 40 grad students/postdocs, and from that you'd expect to see around 100 peer-reviewed papers per year. What's the DI do instead? Dozens of press releases and no scientific papers per year. Why hasn't the Discovery Institute done the science? They can't. ID is not science.

   
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:50   

Quote
How is PR a requirement for starting research?
PR raises money for doing research.

Quote
afdave, please point me to the post in which I claimed that that particular C deletion was the cause for the loss of the gene's function.

Otherwise, please retract your claim and all assumptions derived from it.

You probably told me five times to go look at your link which supposedly proves Dr. Max's assertions.  I did so, as you asked me to.  What else am I to conclude from that article?

If you really don't believe what I thought you believe, fine.  I'll retract my statement.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,04:58   

Quote
PR raises money for doing research.


But as you said, they already have MILLIONS.  And you cannot name one specific research project for which they are trying to raise money.  In the case of ID, the PR is the end, not the means.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,05:10   

The Templeton Foundation even wanted to give them money for research, and the Discovery Institute couldn't come up with any research to do.

Quote
The Templeton Foundation, who provided grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, later asked intelligent design proponents to submit proposals for actual research, "They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said. [7]

   
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,05:32   

Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,09:50)
Quote
How is PR a requirement for starting research?
PR raises money for doing research.

 
Quote
afdave, please point me to the post in which I claimed that that particular C deletion was the cause for the loss of the gene's function.

Otherwise, please retract your claim and all assumptions derived from it.

You probably told me five times to go look at your link which supposedly proves Dr. Max's assertions.  I did so, as you asked me to.  What else am I to conclude from that article?

If you really don't believe what I thought you believe, fine.  I'll retract my statement.

I'm sorry... What part of what we told you a dozen times, that the extraordinary simillarity between the broken parts of the gene in humans and primates can only be explained by common descent (and not independent breaking, as in guinea pigs) did you misunderstand as "we have found the specific deletion that caused the gene to lose function"? I'm curious.

...Actually, no I'm not. Forget it. It doesn't take a genius to understand that you're not even paying attention to what we say. You're probably reading all the data and research we provide wearing your best "poor deluded sinners" condescending smile, and then you skim through it, trying to find a juicy bit you can answer to with a complex and sciency-looking version of "I don't get it, and I don't care".

Whatever, Dave.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,05:35   

Quote
Look, Incorygible.  I'm a businessman with a science/engineeering background and a financial contributor to causes, I'm politically involved, I'm an apologist for YEC, and I'm a little bit like an investigative reporter at the moment.  If you don't want to accept the role of "Evolution Apologist" and jump on the opportunity to make your theory look plausible to an outsider, then don't.  No one is making you.   The ape/human questions and the Creation/Evolution controversy are absolutely to vital to society.  I'm spending 4+ hours a day on this effort. You can't say I'm not putting in any effort.  Now, if you don't like your role, then you don't have to assume it.  On the other hand, if you want to stick around and not get mad, you might have some fun. Others have said they are having fun.  You can too.

Dave, I'm in science.  (I wouldn't say I'm a "scientist", because I don't have the PhD membership card.)  I don't deal with apes, humans, vitamin C synthesis, or microbiology.  I work with fish and trying to save the buggers from going extinct.  But the stuff we've been spending hours a day on is rather elementary biology.  Now, I have enough memory of evolutionary basics to help people (including undrgrads) understand them.  And I think you'll agree that I HAVE assumed that role in answering your questions.  I have been no more snippy with you than I would have been with a sanctimonious student.  But you're right -- I'm not having fun anymore.  That's because I don't think you've fulfilled your stated role.  When I asked you some pretty direct questions (take the hamster one, for example), you pled that it wasn't your role to answer them.  I didn't need the answers, Dave.  I knew them.  They were there for your consideration and education (consider it a take-home exam).  When you don't reply, if not directly, at least in a way that shows some absorbance of the material, well, then I have to believe you didn't consider them at all.  Which means I can't perform the free-education role you've given me.
 
Quote
By the way, I have encountered scientists who seem very resentful of businessmen in general because they feel that businessmen "use" them for their own purposes.  Do you feel this way?  The truth is that both businessmen and scientists are necessary.  Businessmen need scientists to invent and discover new things.  Scientists need businessmen to market their innovations.   And by the way, apologists and politicians are necessary too.  Your side has a famous apologist in Richard Dawkins.  Why shouldn't our side have some too?

No, Dave, I don't feel this way.  But if somebody with an MBA tried to tell me how science works, he'd get the same response that I would if I tried to tell him how to manage a corporation.  I work with anglers, aquaculture industry, government agencies, politicians, NGOs, the general public, and a whole suite of others.  But at the end of the day, I live in the economy of ideas, and I can market those myself.  Nobody goes into evolutionary biology for the money, Dave (though the fame and women are nice).  And even Richard Dawkins didn't go into it for the apologetics.
 
Quote
Again, scientists do much wonderful work.  Where they go wrong is when they write volume after volume of speculation about how the immune system might have evolved and similar things.  They would be much more productive if they hypothesized that it was designed and studied it from that perspective.

Again, Dave, why do you think you know where scientists go wrong?  You've admitted you're not on their level in their respective fields.  I would never presume to tell you where pilots go wrong.  Do you honestly believe those volumes and volumes to be nothing more than fevered imaginings of the delusional? Do you honestly believe that this "perspective" you offer can lend anything to their investigations?  Because if you truly believe this, and if you are a businessman, you should be ALL OVER this easy way to money.  After all, the current crop of scientists aren't doing anything worthwhile, and you seem to know how to correct that, given your science/engineering/religious background.  Why not cure cancer with your "design perspective"? As a politically active businessman who wishes to contribute to humanity and help the YEC cause, would there be anything better?
 
Quote
I understand there is no free lunch.  I was born in poverty and have worked very hard to be where I am now.  No one asked you for a free lunch.  Some of you act as if I am asking you to give me a biology degree for free or something. Again, I am basically a YEC apologist and an investigative reporter asking for a convincing story.  If you don't want to give it, then you don't have to.  If I were in your shoes, though, I would want to try to give a convincing one.

So was I.  So did I.  I have tens of thousands of dollars to pay off in order to earn my understanding of science.  I have a decade of sleepless nights, (relative) social obscurity, failed relationships and poor health to shake off for it.  It was a good investment.  You think you know what you would want if you were in my shoes, but this shows the same presumption.  You are not the first YEC to demand convincing, Dave.  I got interested in this whole affair (I used to not care, just do what I did and let other people believe whatever they wanted) when a YEC (in similar shoes to yours?) sent me a scary fire-and-brimstone e-mail because may name appeared on a university website for teaching a course in evolution.  I'm not here to apologize, Dave.  I'm not here to evangelize (I still believe people can believe whatever they want).  I'm here to defend the boundaries of our separate magisteria.
 
Quote
Incorygible, that's not the same thing ... read my quote again.  I asked if anyone has knocked out the "C" in rat GULO at the position indicated in Faid's article which I quoted.  You responded by saying "Yes, we spliced rat GULO into a human and it worked."  Hello?  That wasn't what I asked.  It's not the same thing.

Faid has already responded to this and where the misunderstanding lies.  And even if he hadn't, I am sorry that I assumed you were asking a question that had some actual over-arching relevance to the discussion.  I assumed you had learned enough by now to realize that "the missing C" was not the deletion we have been talking about (not even close). But yes, I assumed to much, with the proverbial consequences -- you just wanted to go down yet another rabit hole leading to a meaningless detail and pedagogical semantics.
 
Quote
Yes.  But I wouldn't get mad.  I'd just think it was funny.  The fact that people get mad about this stuff is interesting to me.  Why do they?  Oh, I know all the superficial reasons ... I'm thick headed, etc.  But it seems like there must be a more basic reason for the frustration.

The first time, Dave.  The first time.  After explaining it ad nauseum, the humor would begin to lose its effect.  After hearing (and being hounded) about how your life and work is a delusional (or conspiratorial) lie for a few years on end, it might get a bit frustrating.  After one too many shrieks of "racism", misanthropy, genocide, Hitler, etc., etc., etc., you might start to actually get offended.  After a call to Homeland Security, you might be a little appalled (thankfully that one hasn't happened to me -- yet).  And I think you (of all people), might be a little offended by being accused of being in league with the devil and on a fast-track to ####.
 
Quote
"Dave, you're simply not equipped to evaluate the evidence in favour of evolution."
I agree with you.  I am not equipped.  This is why I am giving evolutionary biologists the chance to speak for themselves and explain why their theory is plausible.  If they cannot do this, who can?  I understand that no one is under any obligations here.  There are certain roles, though, and I can tell you that I am certainly not going to assume the role of 'Evolution Apologist.'  So that leaves the job to either you guys or else no one at all. I think people here rightly want to try to answer these questions as best they can because they truly believe in their theory.  And it is important to them for others to understand and agree with this theory.  We all want people to agree with out theories.

Dave, you accuse others of being unable to comprehend what you write, then come back with this?  We know you admit you cannot EXPLAIN (much less investigate and produce) the evidence for evolution.  The post you quote (like others) stated you cannot even EVALUATE it.  If you are here to be "convinced", then you don't agree with this.  I don't give a flying monkey whether or not you agree with what I "believe".  I didn't go to all this effort for your affirmation, Dave.  I'm a researcher and a teacher -- I value education over ignorance.  And even though I long ago gave up on educating you, there are the lurkers (I was one for a long time) who might be getting something out of all this.  Plus, there are the interesting discussions with people who actually do know what they're talking about (many more than I).  I don't care what they "believe", either.  Affirmation and consensus with the norm is not a high priority for me.  Did I not mention I'm in science?  We THRIVE on DISagreement, Dave.

 
Quote
"The convergence for this deletion may not be unlikely, but primates share dozen mutations. And these mistakes in the broken GULO produce the same phylogeny built with other working genes. This cannot have happened by chance. Would you drop this argument?"
Why would I drop the argument if you agree with me that the deletion is not unlikely?

Honestly, do you even read, Dave?  This reply, with the actual quote right above it, proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are illiterate, dumb as a brick, and/or disingenuous.
 
Quote
I do know there are a few mutations that could be construed as "upward" or "increased or new function."  Do you know of many like this?  To disprove Creationism, it would take a multitude of  mutations like this.  And by multitude, I mean thousands or even millions.

Er, no Dave, it wouldn't.  You YECs make the claim that this is absolutely impossible.  In the freaking paragraph above this quote, you claim that "THERE IS NO SUCH THING" as "upward evolution".  That means it takes ONE occurrence to disprove this claim, and this claim IS the root of Creationism.  Your lack of logic, not to mention consistency, is astounding.
 
Quote
"Let's simplify. Is there any conceivable objective observation (or combination thereof) that could disprove Creationism? If so, please explain."
Yes.  There are many possible ways to disprove Creationism, and evolutionists have been hoping for years that just such evidences would come to light as more is known.  They just haven't yet.  The opposite is actually happening.

Nice answer, Dave.  And you wonder why we call you intellectually dishonest.
 
Quote
So there you have it.  We're on page 16 of this thread, and there has been some very good discussion.  After all of this, of the two possible scenarios that I mentioned ...
   
Quote
Scenario 1-The GULO gene could have broken independently in apes and in humans. The Inai article shows that it did indeed break independently in guinea pigs, so why should it not break independently in apes and humans?       OR ..

Scenario 2-The "broken" GULO gene was never a functional GULO gene in either apes or humans.  It always has had some unknown function and still does to this day.  Argystokes called this possibility "pseudo-GLO" and rightly asserted that we should be able to find this gene's homologue throughout the animal kingdom--even in animals that do have a functional GULO gene.

it seems that Scenario 1 is the most likely, although who knows what will turn up as more is known about "pseudo-genes."

I have confirmed my suspicion that Dr. Max's assumptions are not necessarily warranted, although I would not go so far as to say they are wild assumptions.

It is clear to me that the theory that apes and humans had a common ancestor, while it has some apparent support, is by no means a closed case, and there is plenty of evidence supporting Common Design Theory as well.  I don't think we can 'prove' either one of them.  And if I were in Renier's shoes, I certainly would not have abandoned the YEC position because of this issue.

So, as you probably expected would happen, my position remains that Apes are Apes, and Humans are Humans, and as far as anyone really knows for sure, it's always been that way.

Thanks for your participation!  I have nothing further to add on this thread.  If anyone wants to keep going, by all means, go ahead.  But I have completed what I set out to do.

I will now spend all my time presenting evidence for a Creator God, a Young Earth, the Global Flood, the accuracy of the Bible, etc. etc. on my other thread.

Thanks again.

AF Dave.


See no evil.  Hear no evil.  Speak no evil.  And for gawd's sake, never, ever learn a freaking thing.

*edited to include a few additional quotes for clarity

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,05:42   

Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,09:16)
Quote
Science itself is evolutionary and a thousand wrong ideas are tested before we hit on ideas that work. ....


Science is not evolutionary because it is directed by intelligence.

There's a key error in the way you've conceptualized intelligence.  You seem to think evolution and intelligence are mutually exclusive. They're not.

We use both evolutionary trial and error and "thinking" in science. What science is engaged in is a kind of trial and error testing of theories (it's called the experimental method) and that's how evolution works, by trial and error.

But it goes even deeper than that. Genetic algorithms and evolutionary programming are used in Artificial Intelligence research. If you want to know what the #### you're talking about you better read these sites carefully:

http://www.popsci.com/popsci....rd.html

http://www.technologyreview.com/read_ar....biotech

http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-03/departments/feattech/

http://library.thinkquest.org/18242/ga.shtml

In fact, neural net theories and evolutionary algorithms share a lot of mathematics. Neural nets are selectionist algorithms too, working on the principal of reward and punishment and that is similar to natural selection.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,05:58   

Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,09:16)
 I'm spending 4+ hours a day on this effort. You can't say I'm not putting in any effort.

You're spending four hours a day on this stuff? Dave, with that amount of time, you could probably get a graduate degree in evolutionary biology in under two years! In which case, most if not all of your questions would be answered, and you would no longer have to rely on a collection of 2000+ year old myths for your worldview! Why are you wasting your time here?

           
Quote
 
Quote
And besides, if it's not your goal to present positive evidence about the Creationist view, why did you waste several hundred words on your "Creator God Hypothesis" (which, let the record show, you have not yet supported with any positive evidence)? If you weren't going to support it, why did you even bring it up, and waste our time waiting under the misapprehension that you were going to try to support it?
Absolutely.  On that thread, not this one.  This thread is all about "Ape Questions" and seeing what your answers are to those questions.  I have given excellent positive evidence on my other thread for the existence of God, and will over time give much evidence for all the things I said I would.  I know some don't accept my evidence so far, but I cannot help that. All I can do is give it.


Sorry, Dave, you have not presented a single scrap of evidence, let alone "excellent positive evidence" for any of the assertions in your "Creator God Hypothesis." I'm not sure what your definition of "evidence" is, but believe me, you have yet to present a single scintilla of evidence for any of your assertions, on this thread or any other. You've made wild-ass speculations, but those speculations aren't "evidence" of anything. We can't "accept" evidence that you haven't presented.

And I was really looking forward to your "evidence" that the earth is only a few thousand years old…

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

  
incorygible



Posts: 374
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,06:03   

I would really like to separate and preserve for posterity the following afdave doublethink.  Two comments, in the same post, appearing adjacently:

Quote
The evidence shows that there is no such thing [as "upward" evolution], but Evolutionists wish there were.  To me it means addition of wings where there were no wings before, addition of eyes where there were no eyes before, etc.  The reverse happens a lot, however.  Organisms lose function quite often and Creationists predict that this will continue until the time that the Creator RE-creates all things.


Quote
I do know there are a few mutations that could be construed as "upward" or "increased or new function."  Do you know of many like this?  To disprove Creationism, it would take a multitude of  mutations like this.  And by multitude, I mean thousands or even millions.


Furthermore, this is from the man that kicked off (and concluded) this thread by arguing that, if the GULO gene broke once, it could break all the time, in the same manner, in "independent" kinds, and thus we should throw common descent out the window. He referenced an AIG article that argued:

Quote
"If a strong pattern of pseudogenic ‘shared mistakes’ can happen even once in an evolutionarily impossible manner, it can also happen again and again in an evolutionarily consistent manner. Now, more than ever, Occam’s razor dictates that ‘shared mistakes’ be approached in terms of parallel mutations rather than common evolutionary ancestry."


It's so beautiful, I think I'm going to cry.  Good news, Dave -- I'm having fun again!  ;)

  
BWE



Posts: 1896
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,06:09   

Quote
As for BWE, I congratulate you.  I have been insulted a lot of different ways, some creative, some boring.  I have to say that this one takes the cake as the most innovative I have ever heard.  If you tell me your mailing address, I would like to send you a certificate for "Most Creative Insult of All Time."  I will be interested to see if you or anyone else can top this one in the future :-)


The guantlet has been thrown.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,06:15   

Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,09:16)
Let's use your term.  Evolution predicted many transitional fossils and now that the evidence is coming in, there have been only a handful of equivocal ones.

I don't think you grasp the incredible numbers of fossils we do have and the story they tell. People here could probably dig up several transitional fossils for any existing species you could name. Some are more problematic than others, small creatures like bats don't fossilize well because of small bones and not hanging around near water where sedimentary rock forms.

However, some species fossilized better - and one of the best examples of a good fossil record can be found in trilobite evolution.

http://www.trilobites.info/

They're the most diverse group of extinct animals preserved in the fossil record.  There are over 15,000 species of them and probably hundreds of thousands of available fossils. You can see the way they gradually changed form.

I suspect you've been lied to quite a lot about what's in that fossil record.

  
stevestory



Posts: 8825
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,06:27   

Quote

I don't think you grasp the incredible numbers of fossils we do have and the story they tell.
How can he? He dosen't know anything about biology.

You want to have some real fun. Ask him what kind of experiments he'd do with a million dollars from Templeton, to prove Intelligent Design.

   
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,07:17   

Quote (afdave @ May 18 2006,09:16)
To me it [upward evolution] means addition of wings where there were no wings before, ...

If we look at  the fossil evidence of bird evolution we can see how wings got added by evolution.

Fluffy dinosaur 'is an early bird'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....s26.xml

Bird clue to flight of dinosaur
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....o17.xml

Gliding dinosaur 'is missing link' :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news....a23.xml

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020214080242.htm

No creature is one day born with functional wings if their parents didn't have them. Evolution does not plan ahead, it only selects for traits that are benefitial at the moment, so you argue that wings and eyes never could have evolved by natural selection. How good is half a wing? How good is half an eye?

Turns out, those things are more useful that you think.

Ever seen a flying squirrel. It jumps from tree to tree with an almost wing-like flap of skin. It glides. They can't fly, but it's not hard to imagine a gradual evolution where the gliding ability increased slowly until one day one of them could fly. That's indeed what the fossils noted above suggest.

Young birds with only partially formed wings are aided by them when in increasing running speed. Small improvements will, as it mostly does in evolution, mean the difference between life and death.

Half a wing is half as good as a whole wing, and often better than no wings. Same with eyes. You just have to figure out what those halves really are.

It would seem, Dave, that you've never read Richard Dawkins.

  
Russell



Posts: 1082
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,07:40   

Quote
[afdave:] Again, scientists do much wonderful work.  Where they go wrong is when they write volume after volume of speculation about how the immune system might have evolved and similar things.  They would be much more productive if they hypothesized that it was designed and studied it from that perspective.
Quote
[incorygible:] Again, Dave, why do you think you know where scientists go wrong?  You've admitted you're not on their level in their respective fields.  I would never presume to tell you where pilots go wrong...
This is why I'm done here. It might be fun to watch a non-scientist experience the "aha!" experience  as he learns how scientists know what they know, but the impenetrable arrogance of this guy - the certainty that it's the scholars, teachers, practitioners of the field that need to learn from him "where they go wrong"

Have a nice life, afdave.

(I strongly recommend you find some other use for your spare 4 hours a day; it's clear that you're not going to learn anything.)

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1466
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,09:15   

Quote
As for BWE, I congratulate you.  I have been insulted a lot of different ways, some creative, some boring.  I have to say that this one takes the cake as the most innovative I have ever heard.  If you tell me your mailing address, I would like to send you a certificate for "Most Creative Insult of All Time."  I will be interested to see if you or anyone else can top this one in the future :-)


I'll just note that the sum total of AFDave's scientific knowledge and integrity would comfortably fit inside a thimble, with plenty of room left for his genitalia.

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,09:19   

Quote (normdoering @ May 18 2006,12:17)
It would seem, Dave, that you've never read Richard Dawkins.

How could he? He got to the part he quoted, and then figured out it was ok to finally do the obligatory "loud laughter + throw book away" ritual he had to perform, to maintain face in his circle.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
normdoering



Posts: 287
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,09:32   

Quote (Faid @ May 18 2006,14:19)
He got to the part he quoted, ...

I doubt even that. I think he stole the quote from a  creationist site and never really read Dawkins.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,09:42   

*sigh*
I suppose you're right. I guess I'm still giving him too much credit... what can you do.

--------------
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:

"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"

"...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

  
afdave



Posts: 1619
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,10:20   

Aftershave said ...
Quote
I'll just note that the sum total of AFDave's scientific knowledge and integrity would comfortably fit inside a thimble, with plenty of room left for his genitalia.


BWE's was funnier. He's still in first place.  But keep trying.  You might pull off a good one yet.

--------------
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.
http://afdave.wordpress.com/....ess.com

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 18 2006,10:22   

Quote
I would never presume to tell you where pilots go wrong


this got me thinking...

90% of AF personal are NOT pilots.  Why did we conclude Dave ever flew a plane again?

did he say he was a pilot somewhere?  Did I miss that?

  
  685 replies since May 08 2006,03:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (23) < ... 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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