RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (51) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: forastero's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,05:55   

People who can't manage topicality elsewhere can always be topical in a thread devoted to them.

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,06:06   

Does "forastero" want to talk about punctuated equilibria?

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

    
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,06:20   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 21 2011,12:06)
Does "forastero" want to talk about punctuated equilibria?

Only as part of a pantheist communist mode of belief designed to destroy free markets and oppress designers, you Freemason.

Or something.

Louis

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,07:47   

Quote (forastero @ sometime)


Ha..so you feel my busting rhymes about divine designs was nice but plagiarized? Nice try but that lie dont fly. So recheck your cite big guy

You say puncuated equilibrium via solar radiation (sun god) zapped a bacteria into a mitochondria that eventually turned into horseflies, raccoons, T. rex, and baboons but we say orderly miraculous design.

We IDers havnt figured it all out just yet but you have to admit that 99.9 percent of the greatest scientists believed in ID


Here, let's get the party started.

That last quote is very interesting.  So, what you are saying (and correct me if I'm wrong), is that everything is designed.  Everything from the stars to the planets, to the tiny bacteria and viruses that infect our designed bodies and render them useless.

If that is the case, then we are at an impass and no science can be done.  The reason is that if everything is directly designed, then there should be no patterns in anything in the universe to observe.  Every solar system could have their own unique set of Kepler's Laws.  Every organism could have a radically different macromolecular system.

The FACT that we don't see this and instead observe distinct patterns that come from physical laws that are constant throughout the known universe tends to lead us to the conclusion that these natural laws are the designer.

If you are willing to accept that 'The Designer' ™ is actually the natural laws of the universe, then I'm willing to accept that.

If you are not willing to accept that, then the only logical conclusion is that 'The Designer'™ is trying to hide its existence from us.

Fortunately, the ID people are willing to help the designer hide by expressly refusing to even consider the designer, much less look for evidence that supports him.

I am afraid, that you don't have a clue about how the world works.  You appear to be stuck in the late 1400s, when a statement to the church would be taken as absolute truth, up to and including the torture and death by torture of the subject of the statement.  

Since then, however, there was this movement we call The Enlightenment.  During this movement, some members of the species to which you may or may not belong, began to use these powerful computing organs called brains.  They worked out a series of steps that could only be true.  They called this 'logic'.

Then they worked out a system for determining the answers to questions where logic didn't work so good.  They called this process the scientific method.  Now, given that everything that has been invented in the modern world is a product of the scientific method, I would venture to say that it works, as a system for knowing, pretty well.

You however, (hypocritically) say that the scientific method doesn't work.  I say 'hypocritically' because you are using tools and processes developed by the scientific method to deny that the scientific method works.

I know that you are attempting to only talk about biology, but what is biology founded on? Chemistry.  What is chemistry founded on?  Physics.  What is physics founded on?  The fundamental laws of the universe that were discovered using the scientific method.

So basically, what you are attempting to not say is that you believe that all the knowledge, tools, and processes developed by man in the last 200 years don't actually work.

The reason you say this is because you don't like the implications for your pet deity.  However, one of the hallmarks of the scientific method, which you seem to know as you have made demands of us, is that of evidence.

Yet you (again, hypocritically) demand a level of evidence from us, that you cannot provide about your own, competing notions.  In fact, you refuse to even talk about your own notions, just that ours (backed up by mountains of evidence) are wrong.

Let me explain in the simplest terms I can.

Even if you prove evolution, chemistry, and physics wrong.  It still doesn't mean your designer exists.

Yet you and your ilk refuse to even speculate*, much less seek evidence.  Why is that?

Given the above, I am at your service to discuss with you the topic of your choice.  

If you have evidence for the designer, then, I'm sure, we would all be thrilled to hear it.



__

* Everyone knows of course, that the designer is God.  It is expressly stated by every single one of the main ID proponents.  It is in their writings and speeches.  Yet, when confronted by science or courts, they try to refute that.  Unfortunately for them, there is as much evidence for God as there is for Intelligent Design of living things.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,10:37   

Most of the world's greatest scientists were creationists. So what? They were also sexist, moneyed, white males pursuing what was then a hobby.

Darwin was a creationist bound for the seminary at one time. Something (actually a series of things) changed his mind.

If everything is designed, then Behe's "we can distinguish design from non-design, Mount Rushmore versus mountains" argument collapses.

(shug)

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,10:40   

Ogre,

We didnt say that "everything is designed"

Even though life is designed by the same molecular building blocks that makes up "the earth", there are still radically different molecular systems. On the other hand, similarities do not at all dismiss design either.

Kepler was another creationist who's inspirations are still being built upon but we still to this day do not understand the laws of solar systems to their fullest and you probably never will.

Like the Woodstock era of music, the enlightenment was a spiritual inspiration that was both used and abused but creationists did the greater works by far.  The Baconian "scientific method" was also termed by a creationists and I have never dismissed it except when its abused, especially in Nazi styles.

No one including most scientists need to fully understand rocket science in order to recognized that rockets are designed and ID abides by KISS or Occam's (also a creationist) Razor, the Scientific Method, and the Laws of Nature; but the theory of evolution does not. For instance:

ID--superior designer made order from disorder

Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly made some primordial soup spontaneously generate into a bacteria-like critter that accidentally turned in to all kinds of other creatures by some punctuated solar radiation

ID--An elaborately designed endocrine system that purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli

Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they happen to occur at just the right time and niche

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,10:44   

Hmm..Keeping me confined like a caged King Kong

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,10:52   

more like a retard on a leash, it looks to me.

werner von braun, heard of him?  he invented your precious rocket.

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

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

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

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

  
rossum



Posts: 174
Joined: Dec. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:01   

So, lets have a closer look.
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
For instance:

ID--superior designer made order from disorder

Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly made some primordial soup spontaneously generate into a bacteria-like critter that accidentally turned in to all kinds of other creatures by some punctuated solar radiation

Was your "superior designer" disordered?  If so then you are making order from disorder, which is what you are claiming cannot be done by evolution.

Was your "superior designer" ordered?  If so then where did that order come from, how did it originate?  Was there an even more superior "superior designer" designer to create that order?

Quote
ID--An elaborately designed endocrine system that purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli

Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they happen to occur at just the right time and niche

Evolution does not rely on miracles, that is the province of creationists.  Do some calculations on the size of populations and the number of mutations an individual carries.  The appearance of a specific mutation is not that unlikely over a few generations.

rossum

--------------
The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:09   

forastero:
Quote
ID--superior designer made order from disorder


Thermodynamics was discovered by designers (humans) and found that there were some laws (the second in particular) that say this is not possible.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:25   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip>
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip>

How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?

How can genes make mistakes?

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:34   

Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this  big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order



See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:37   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,11:25)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip>
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip>

How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?

How can genes make mistakes?

Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:44   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:40)
The Baconian "scientific method" was also termed by a creationists and I have never dismissed it except when its abused, especially in Nazi styles.

Moron.



--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:47   

Quote
See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock


D00D HAVE YOU LIKE I MEAN YOU KNOW LIKE REALLY LIKE, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT YOUR HAND, MAN

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

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

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:49   

Quote
Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms


ahh yes the ideal free genetic state.  how you doing, Joe?

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

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

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

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

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,11:56   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:34)
Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this  big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order


See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock

Uuhh...you do realize that the Big Bang was not an explosion, but rather an expansion, right?

Oh...nevermind. Apparently you don't.

Of course, even if it had been, your claim would be erroneous. The Big Bang did not create order; gravity (among other forces) did.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,12:02   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:37)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,11:25)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip>
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip>

How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?

How can genes make mistakes?

Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms

Go back up and read the questions again.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,12:14   

one stupid meeting and I miss all the fun.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Gunthernacus



Posts: 232
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,12:21   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 06 2011,05:28)
The practice of science involves formulating hypothesis that can be tested for falsifiability via observed data. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,04:02)
We IDers havnt figured it all out just yet but you have to admit that 99.9 percent of the greatest scientists believed in ID

How did they use ID - or is ID useless for doing science?  I won't ague about the 99.9% or who was/wasn't an IDer - I'll just note that they weren't expelled, and that their work is taught in public school.  You claim the vast majority of the greatest scientists, yet ID is a threadbare set of vague notions and your martyr complex is a sad little fiction used to sell movies and books to the gullible.

--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,12:36   

Quote
Ogre,

We didnt say that "everything is designed"


Excellent.  So some things are designed and some things are not.

Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.

Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence.  They are cop-outs.

I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed.  I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.

If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.

Quote


Even though life is designed by the same molecular building blocks that makes up "the earth", there are still radically different molecular systems. On the other hand, similarities do not at all dismiss design either.


I'll assume you're talking about biomacromolecules here.  What's very interesting is, in all the cases that have been studied in detail, we can actually track the changes over time, showing how small 'accidents' (your language, not mine), build up over time and result in radically different molecular systems.

Here's an analogy that actually works.  A Dachshund is a dog right?  Canis familaris right?  A Great Dane is a dog, right?  Same species right... and yet radically different.

Quote

Kepler was another creationist who's inspirations are still being built upon but we still to this day do not understand the laws of solar systems to their fullest and you probably never will.
Quote


Kepler, in spite of being a creationist, still used the scientific method and evidence to observe the laws that govern planetary motion.  He used math to codify those laws.

ID proponents have done none of this type of work.


Like the Woodstock era of music, the enlightenment was a spiritual inspiration that was both used and abused but creationists did the greater works by far.  The Baconian "scientific method" was also termed by a creationists and I have never dismissed it except when its abused, especially in Nazi styles.
Quote


Can I just say "WTF"?  

I think I understand the problem though.  You are conflating modern creationists with historical creationists who actually understood how to do science.


No one including most scientists need to fully understand rocket science in order to recognized that rockets are designed and ID abides by KISS or Occam's (also a creationist) Razor, the Scientific Method, and the Laws of Nature; but the theory of evolution does not. For instance:


Interesting.  

Honestly, I think you are mostly correct here.  But, of course, that completely destroys your entire 'designed' argument.

Evolution (speaking anthropomorphically, which is incorrect, but I'll assume you understand) cannot use engineering principles, because it can't start over with a clean slate, like an intelligent designer can.

Evolution can't "keep it simple" because it has to use systems that are already in place and modify them only.

Evolution, of course, can't use the scientific method... that's a human construct.  But it does explore, it does test (without thinking about the results).  Like genetic algorithms, evolution changes things randomly and then tests the results in the real world against some fitness requirement.  If the organism doesn't meet this minimum requirement, then it dies, probably without leaving offspring.  If it does, then it's fitness can be compared to other offspring by judging how many offspring it creates and (occasionally) raises to reproductive age.

Although, I will say that NOTHING doesn't obey the Laws of Nature.  Anything, by definition, that does not obey the laws of nature is... supernatural... which, BTW, is what science expressly does not investigate.

So, thanks for eviscerating your own argument.  Shame, you didn't realize it.

Quote

ID--superior designer made order from disorder


evidence please...

Quote

Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly made some primordial soup spontaneously generate into a bacteria-like critter that accidentally turned in to all kinds of other creatures by some punctuated solar radiation
Quote


More evidence you don't really understand what's going on.  Once a living thing is created, then it begins to evolve.  Some definitions of life even have a requirement for life evolving.

Let's talk about chance a second.  Let's say there's a trillion to one chance of something happening.  That's a lot right?  Until you realize that there are something like 5 billion bacteria in a GRAM of soil.  In a metric ton of soil, there can be something like 500 trillion bacteria.  So, in a  metric ton of soil, your trillion to one chance... happens 500 times every generation.  oops.




ID--An elaborately designed endocrine system that purposefully selects ancestral phenotypes in accord to environmental stimuli


again I say 'huh'?  You really want to claim this sentence... that our endocrine system selects phenotypes?  Really?

Quote

Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes survive and often replace ancestors if they happen to occur at just the right time and niche

Let's see, I can point out a non-miraculous genetic 'mistake'* that just happens to increase the survival rate of the owner by 95% in certain environmental situations.

Of course, if the death rate the this mistake prevents is close to 100% (and it is), then take a guess at what the genotype of the offspring will be (assuming you know how to figure this stuff out).

Here's a hint: cross a heterozygote with a homozygote for the trait.  Eliminate any offspring that are homozygous dominant.  Cross the resulting offspring (you pick two).  repeat 3 or four times.  How many homozygous dominants do you have?  How many heterzygotes do you have?



__
* Because scientists know exactly when it occurred, where it occurred, and how.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Kristine



Posts: 3037
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,17:34   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:34)
Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this  big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order

[snip image]

See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock

Wait a minute. You actually think that the deliberate misnomer "Big Bang" (Hoyle) refers to an actual explosion?

I get that a lot.

--------------
Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

"Damn you. This means a trip to the library. Again." -- fnxtr

  
Cubist



Posts: 346
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,21:03   

I second Ogre's remarks above: If you're not claiming that everything is Designed, you must be claiming that some things are Designed and other things are not Designed... so how do you tell the difference? Given some arbitrarily-chosen whatzit, how can you tell whether said whatzit is, or is not, Designed?

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,22:14   

Quote (Robin @ Oct. 21 2011,11:56)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:34)
Yeah explosions are normally destroyers but this  big bang lead to order-thus order from disorder via order


See the multitude of geologic (like mountain building), atmospheric, and intergalactic processes all work in tandem just like an intelligently designed clock

Uuhh...you do realize that the Big Bang was not an explosion, but rather an expansion, right?

Oh...nevermind. Apparently you don't.

Of course, even if it had been, your claim would be erroneous. The Big Bang did not create order; gravity (among other forces) did.

Now you believe gravity created all that order presented in that image ?


Rumsfeld, first of all Guth and most others claim that the Big Bang went through initial hyperinflation and super symmetry but has slowed drastically partly do to gravity and entropy. However, a mysterious dark energy "seems" to be making the galaxy accelerate. Some scientist are bringing up relativity in that it only appears to accelerate from our vantage point but in my layman's view its kinda like a bullet picking up velocity as it leaves the barrel but finally slowing due to not only gravity but also entropy in that the energy behind the bullet becomes unorganized somewhat like accuracy; but then at a certain threshold, not only is gravity diminished but that energy that became unorganized earlier, is now concentrated once again as if the bullet suddenly went through a separate explosion. Some hypothesize that multiple supernovas are behind this dark energy but I am inclined to credit it to supernatural events.

Now concerning your insistence that the Big Bang explosion was a metaphor, it seems few scientists agree with you. For instance:

The first minutes of the titanic explosion (Inflation theory): But how are the elements in the universe formed? The scientist “Alan Guth” answered this questions as he discovered another theory which is the ‘inflation theory’, and it was accepted by every scientist, and in this theory he explained the first 3 minutes after the titanic explosion, according to this theory the titanic explosion followed by a huge fireball in an extreme temperature after one part from many millions parts of a second, the temperature decreased to 1022 K, where the fundamental bodies is formed and after 10- 6 seconds the ‘singularity’ became as big as a solar system (it’s radius is 588 x 1010 ),when the temperature became 109 K the radiation became to be emitted after the first second the reaction stopped but universe is still expending until now. The “inflation” theory is considered very important because we knew the 1st minutes after the “Titanic explosion”, and it’s very mysterious explosion because it’s not such a normal explosion to the matter in space but it was the explosion of space itself. http://library.thinkquest.org/C005731....th.html


Alan Guth: We do have a number of pieces of information that we can put together to try use as a basis for constructing theories. Observations about the distributions of galaxies within the visible part of the universe, and the motions of galaxies. Also now very important are observations of the cosmic background radiation — radiation that we believe is the afterglow of the big bang’s explosion itself. http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth

The birth of a new universe also does not affect the old one. It would take about 10?37 seconds to disconnect from its parent. However, all an observer would see is the formation of a black hole, which would disappear very quickly. Creating a new universe actually would be quite dangerous since it would result in the release of energy similar to that of a 500 kiloton explosion. http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth

An answer came in 1979 when physicist Alan Guth proposed that, just after the primal explosion, the universe temporarily kicked into overdrive and began wildly expanding, doubling and doubling and doubling again. This inflationary epoch lasted the tiniest fraction of a second. But according to the calculations, this was enough to even out the radiation and flatten the curvature — to smooth out the wrinkles in the Big Bang. The Cosmological constant was back. http://www.hbci.com/~wenona....ang.htm


Today, the researchers who make up the Grand Challenge Cosmology Consortium (GC3) harness the power of supercomputers to look at the birth and infancy of the universe, starting from the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which is believed to have started it all about 15 billion years ago. GC3 is a collaboration between cosmologists, astrophysicists, and computer scientists studying the formation of large-scale cosmological structure. http://www.nsf.gov/news....ers.jsp

Readhead, with Caltech colleagues Steve Padin and Timothy Pearson and others from Canada, Chile and the United States, generated the finest measurements to date of the cosmic microwave background. Cosmic microwave background (CMB) is a record of the first photons that escaped from the rapidly cooling, coalescing universe about 300,000 years after the cosmic explosion known as the Big Bang that is commonly believed to have given birth to the universe. http://www.nsf.gov/od....241.htm

According to current estimates, it burst into being 13.7 billion years ago in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang, with the galaxies congealing out of the cooling debris.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science....ed.html

About 13.7 billion years ago, the Universe burst into being in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang. Out of the expanding and cooling debris eventually congealed the galaxies, great islands of stars of which our own Milky Way is one. http://royalsociety.org/news....ig-bang

Eminent Scientist George Gamow and other scientists believe that Big Bang was a nuclear explosion. Gamow with his collaborators Ralph Alpher, Robert Hermann and James W. Follin, explored how chemical elements like helium and lithium could have been produced out of primordial hydrogen by thermonuclear reactions during the Big Bang. George Gamow put forward a hot Big Bang model in which primordial substance, or ylem, from which all other matter was created was an extraordinarily hot, dense singularity that exploded in a "Big Bang" and has been expanding ever since. http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/in...sm....undance

The term primordial fireball refers to this early time in the Universe. As the Universe continued to expand, its temperature and density dropped, allowing for the formation of atoms. This is known as the 'epoch of recombination', and it was at this time that photons could travel freely throughout the Universe for the first time. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) is the record of these photons at the moment of their escape. http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos....ireball

About 3 seconds after the Big Bang, nucleosynthesis set in with protons and neutrons beginning to form the nuclei of simple elements, predominantly hydrogen and helium, yet for the first 100,000 years after the initial hot explosion there was no matter of the form we know today. http://www.thebigview.com/spaceti....se.html

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,22:23   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,12:02)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:37)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 21 2011,11:25)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,10:40)
Evolutionism--a chance explosion accidentally and randomly <snip>
Evolutionism--Miraculous genetic mistakes<snip>

How could something that's not planned (i.e., something that happens by "chance") be characterized as accidental?

How can genes make mistakes?

Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms

Go back up and read the questions again.

Wayne, the sins of mankind are known to mess with our genes big time via pollution, drugs, outbreaks, STDs, atmospheric degradation, etc etc..

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,22:32   

Ogre, it seems you have somehow quoted our dialogue a bit out of context but oh well

Quote
again I say 'huh'?  You really want to claim this sentence... that our endocrine system selects phenotypes?  Really?


Of course! It’s the basis of adaptation


Quote
Excellent.  So some things are designed and some things are not.

Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.

Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence.  They are cop-outs.

I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed.  I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.

If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.




There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles

Quote
I'll assume you're talking about biomacromolecules here.  What's very interesting is, in all the cases that have been studied in detail, we can actually track the changes over time, showing how small 'accidents' (your language, not mine), build up over time and result in radically different molecular systems.


With all these so called mutations and all this genetic knowledge, you would think that a few “innate” Nucleotide manipulations could turn a fruit fly into something other than a fruit fly; or bacteria into something other than bacteria. Your priest must of felt these phylogenies and/or molecular clock were like brail for the blind because its science  grossly racked with fraud and circular reasoning.  


Quote
Here's an analogy that actually works.  A Dachshund is a dog right?  Canis familaris right?  A Great Dane is a dog, right?  Same species right... and yet radically different.

That’s not mutation but rather domestic manipulation of preexisting ancestral phenotypes

Quote
evidence please...

I will even skip the thousands of renowned creationists quotes from the likes of Faraday, Newton, Pasteur from enlightenment and after and cite your favorite secularist

Einstein: "I'm not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations."

Einstein: “God always takes the simplest way”.

Einstein: “That deep emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.”

Einstein: Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source . . . They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres. (The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton University Press, 2000 p. 214)

Einstein: What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos. (Albert Einstein to Joseph Lewis, Apr. 18, 1953)

Einstein: “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe—a spirit vastly superior to that of man.”

Einstein:"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

Einstein: "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the unlimitable superior who reveals Himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God."


Quote
Interesting.  

Honestly, I think you are mostly correct here.  But, of course, that completely destroys your entire 'designed' argument.

Evolution (speaking anthropomorphically, which is incorrect, but I'll assume you understand) cannot use engineering principles, because it can't start over with a clean slate, like an intelligent designer can.

Evolution can't "keep it simple" because it has to use systems that are already in place and modify them only.

Evolution, of course, can't use the scientific method... that's a human construct.  But it does explore, it does test (without thinking about the results).  Like genetic algorithms, evolution changes things randomly and then tests the results in the real world against some fitness requirement.  If the organism doesn't meet this minimum requirement, then it dies, probably without leaving offspring.  If it does, then it's fitness can be compared to other offspring by judging how many offspring it creates and (occasionally) raises to reproductive age.

Although, I will say that NOTHING doesn't obey the Laws of Nature.  Anything, by definition, that does not obey the laws of nature is... supernatural... which, BTW, is what science expressly does not investigate.

So, thanks for eviscerating your own argument.  Shame, you didn't realize it.

Let's see, I can point out a non-miraculous genetic 'mistake'* that just happens to increase the survival rate of the owner by 95% in certain environmental situations.

Of course, if the death rate the this mistake prevents is close to 100% (and it is), then take a guess at what the genotype of the offspring will be (assuming you know how to figure this stuff out).

Here's a hint: cross a heterozygote with a homozygote for the trait.  Eliminate any offspring that are homozygous dominant.  Cross the resulting offspring (you pick two).  repeat 3 or four times.  How many homozygous dominants do you have?  How many heterzygotes do you have?


That’s why its more appropriate to say evolutionism because your scenario is based on faith and/or pseudoscience.  For instance, sickle cell anemia and enzyme eating bacteria are at least somewhat of a negative trait that doesnt even come close to explaining any evolution into a new species. Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 1950
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,22:49   

Shit.

Why are you still here?

Disappear by crawling up your asshole. You are half-way there already.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2011,23:20   

Quote
Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles


that about sums this horseshit up in a nutshell

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

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

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

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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2093
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,01:06   

(shrug) So, Bozo Joe thought up a new nym. (shrug)

SSDD.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,03:26   

The request of "evidence please" was made in a context that "forastero" ignores:

Quote

ID--superior designer made order from disorder


The quotes from Einstein are opinion, not evidence. In fact, the repeated theme of "deeply emotional conviction" is a big clue that even Einstein was aware that he wasn't offering evidence. Of course, people used to proof-texting get quite confused when running into a scientific discussion where quoting an authority's opinion doesn't further an argument.

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

    
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,06:55   

So Einstein used "designer-ish" language/believed in Spinozan deism therefore Jesus?

Great well that's that settled. Pub anyone?

Oh wait...

...maybe there are a few missing steps in your reasoning. I'm wondering if you'd accept the argument "Bertrand Russell did not use "designer-ish" language/did not believe in Spinozan deism therefore no Jesus". I'm guessing not. Perhaps reflect on why.

Louis

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,08:38   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:14)
explosions

Dude,

Explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the difference between hyper-inflation and a matter/anti-matter explosion.

If you can't do this, then you don't understand what scientists are talking about.

I'll add that when a scientist is talking (much like we're doing here), the scientist must reduce the technical language and use more common words that the listeners understand so as not to confuse the listeners and not to bore them.  Unfortunately, this often reduces the accuracy of the statements by the scientists... which is then quote-mine fodder for jerks like you who don't understand (or don't care) that they are taking things out of context.

For example, I have often used the word explosion in referring to the Big Bang... to 3rd graders.  After that, I use inflation, often demonstrating with a balloon.

If you really want to talk cosmology, then let's talk about it, but let's talk about it using the actual terms and technical language.  If you can't do that, then you have no business using it as any kind of argument because you don't understand it.

To continue, please explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what symmetry breaking is, in context of the early universe.  Explain why it's important and the role the both inflation and gravity may have played in it.

Again, if you can't do that, then I really suggest you quit using words that you don't understand.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,09:07   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:32)
Ogre, it seems you have somehow quoted our dialogue a bit out of context but oh well


Assertion.  Evidence Please.

 
Quote

   
Quote
again I say 'huh'?  You really want to claim this sentence... that our endocrine system selects phenotypes?  Really?


Of course! It’s the basis of adaptation

Assertion.  Evidence Please.

And really.  Please explain exactly what the ENDOCRINE system is and how it SELECTS phenotypes.

For extra points, please explain what a phenotype is.

 
Quote


   
Quote
Excellent.  So some things are designed and some things are not.

Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.

Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence.  They are cop-outs.

I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed.  I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.

If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.




There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles


OK, you have got to be a Poe.

Assertion, evidence please.

BTW: 'poo' as you so eloquently describe it, is material that is indigestible by whatever organism is ejecting it.  Interestingly, many things are indigestible, because the organism has lost the ability to digest that material due to mutation.  Oops.

 
Quote

   
Quote
I'll assume you're talking about biomacromolecules here.  What's very interesting is, in all the cases that have been studied in detail, we can actually track the changes over time, showing how small 'accidents' (your language, not mine), build up over time and result in radically different molecular systems.


With all these so called mutations and all this genetic knowledge, you would think that a few “innate” Nucleotide manipulations could turn a fruit fly into something other than a fruit fly; or bacteria into something other than bacteria. Your priest must of felt these phylogenies and/or molecular clock were like brail for the blind because its science  grossly racked with fraud and circular reasoning.  


You might think that, but that only shows how clueless you are about what mutation is and what a genome is.

Consider the human genome.  3 billion pairs of nucleotides, approximately 1.5% of which codes for proteins.  The chimpanzee genome differs by about 1.23%.  So, when you do some math...

The human genome differs from our nearest relative by 33 million changes.  So, as an estimate, you need about 33 million changes from one organism to another.  This varies among organisms of course.  

You, and other creationists, are the only people who actually think something like this should be possible in evolutionary theory.

It's called a straw-man attack and, as a rhetorical device, it can be effective.  In a forum like this, not so much.

I would encourage you to learn about what scientists actually say about evolution... not what creationists have quoted them saying, but their actual peer-reviewed papers.

BTW: We all note that this is STILL an attack on evolution and NOT evidence for design.  Evidence for design please.

 
Quote


   
Quote
Here's an analogy that actually works.  A Dachshund is a dog right?  Canis familaris right?  A Great Dane is a dog, right?  Same species right... and yet radically different.

That’s not mutation but rather domestic manipulation of preexisting ancestral phenotypes


Assertion.  Evidence please.

BTW: I can, in cats, point to a mutation, that results in a different phenotype.  We know where it happened, when it happened, and which organism had the specific mutation.  That mutation has carried through to a completely new breed of cat.

BTW2: I note that you didn't mention the use of the endocrine system in the selection of phenotypes here.  Tell us... please.

 
Quote

   
Quote
evidence please...

I will even skip the thousands of renowned creationists quotes from the likes of Faraday, Newton, Pasteur from enlightenment and after and cite your favorite secularist



I'm not sure the forum software will let me express my disdain properly, but I will try.

QUOTES ARE NOT EVIDENCE

 
Quote

snip
   
Quote
Interesting.  

Honestly, I think you are mostly correct here.  But, of course, that completely destroys your entire 'designed' argument.

Evolution (speaking anthropomorphically, which is incorrect, but I'll assume you understand) cannot use engineering principles, because it can't start over with a clean slate, like an intelligent designer can.

Evolution can't "keep it simple" because it has to use systems that are already in place and modify them only.

Evolution, of course, can't use the scientific method... that's a human construct.  But it does explore, it does test (without thinking about the results).  Like genetic algorithms, evolution changes things randomly and then tests the results in the real world against some fitness requirement.  If the organism doesn't meet this minimum requirement, then it dies, probably without leaving offspring.  If it does, then it's fitness can be compared to other offspring by judging how many offspring it creates and (occasionally) raises to reproductive age.

Although, I will say that NOTHING doesn't obey the Laws of Nature.  Anything, by definition, that does not obey the laws of nature is... supernatural... which, BTW, is what science expressly does not investigate.

So, thanks for eviscerating your own argument.  Shame, you didn't realize it.

Let's see, I can point out a non-miraculous genetic 'mistake'* that just happens to increase the survival rate of the owner by 95% in certain environmental situations.

Of course, if the death rate the this mistake prevents is close to 100% (and it is), then take a guess at what the genotype of the offspring will be (assuming you know how to figure this stuff out).

Here's a hint: cross a heterozygote with a homozygote for the trait.  Eliminate any offspring that are homozygous dominant.  Cross the resulting offspring (you pick two).  repeat 3 or four times.  How many homozygous dominants do you have?  How many heterzygotes do you have?


That’s why its more appropriate to say evolutionism because your scenario is based on faith and/or pseudoscience.  For instance, sickle cell anemia and enzyme eating bacteria are at least somewhat of a negative trait that doesnt even come close to explaining any evolution into a new species. Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.

And yet, I can provide mathematical evidence, experimental evidence, observational evidence for everything I say...

and you can't.

Tell you what.  Define species for me and I'll provide the evidence of the change you describe.  How about that?

 
Quote
Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something


Assertion.  Evidence please.

I'll point out here that you are using another rhetorical device.  It's called 'goalpost shifting'.  You make a claim, when that claim is defeated you say something like, "No, that doesn't deal with this claim."

Here we were talking about the massive evidence supporting adaptation and how mutation does not automatically lead to death, but improved fitness.  Then you claim that this does not explain speciation.

Of course it doesn't explain speciation.  It wasn't intended to, but you have to shift the goalposts to make it look like your argument hasn't been totally devastated.

Tell you what. If you so choose, pick an argument and stick to it, then we can to.

BTW: I can provide dozens of peer-reviewed papers showing single generation speciation and at least on showing a single generation genus change.  But that paper is only from 30+ years ago, I don't know why I should expect anyone to know it.


So let me be very clear here.  You don't understand cosmology.  You don't understand genetics.  You use strawman attacks against positions no actual scientists hold.  You think quotes are evidence.

Yeah, about what I thought.

I'll make the same offer to you that I do to all creationists.  I will voluntarily teach you using actual science.  My only requirement is that you want to learn how the world actually works.

At the least, it will give you a better understanding of what you have to do to make valid arguments both for ID and against evolution.

I predict that you won't do it.  No creationist I have dealt with in over 20 years has accepted.  I know why... do you?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,12:52   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2011,03:26)
The request of "evidence please" was made in a context that "forastero" ignores:

Quote

ID--superior designer made order from disorder


The quotes from Einstein are opinion, not evidence. In fact, the repeated theme of "deeply emotional conviction" is a big clue that even Einstein was aware that he wasn't offering evidence. Of course, people used to proof-texting get quite confused when running into a scientific discussion where quoting an authority's opinion doesn't further an argument.

Wesley, I misread that question but partly because I already provided evidence with the  big bang  (from chaos) quotes and the image of earth (order) that I posted above.

Hmm speaking of explosions, there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,13:01   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 22 2011,06:55)
So Einstein used "designer-ish" language/believed in Spinozan deism therefore Jesus?

Great well that's that settled. Pub anyone?

Oh wait...

...maybe there are a few missing steps in your reasoning. I'm wondering if you'd accept the argument "Bertrand Russell did not use "designer-ish" language/did not believe in Spinozan deism therefore no Jesus". I'm guessing not. Perhaps reflect on why.

Louis

Said nothing of the sort. I simply asserted that he believed in ID

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,13:01   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:32)
   
Quote
Here's an analogy that actually works.  A Dachshund is a dog right?  Canis familaris right?  A Great Dane is a dog, right?  Same species right... and yet radically different.

That’s not mutation but rather domestic manipulation of preexisting ancestral phenotypes

The dog's genome says you are wrong.

Would you be more specific about your hypothesis of "domestic manipulation"? How would it occur, physiologically?
EDIT. This is relevant: http://www.sciencemag.org/content....bstract
Full text: http://www27.brinkster.com/taisets....ent.pdf
Read this and tell us your conclusion, please.

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,13:04   

Oh and Spinoza seems to have believed Divine design and inspiration as well

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,13:06   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,13:04)
Oh and Spinoza seems to have believed Divine design and inspiration as well

So...?

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,13:11   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,08:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:14)
explosions

Dude,

Explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the difference between hyper-inflation and a matter/anti-matter explosion.

If you can't do this, then you don't understand what scientists are talking about.

I'll add that when a scientist is talking (much like we're doing here), the scientist must reduce the technical language and use more common words that the listeners understand so as not to confuse the listeners and not to bore them.  Unfortunately, this often reduces the accuracy of the statements by the scientists... which is then quote-mine fodder for jerks like you who don't understand (or don't care) that they are taking things out of context.

For example, I have often used the word explosion in referring to the Big Bang... to 3rd graders.  After that, I use inflation, often demonstrating with a balloon.

If you really want to talk cosmology, then let's talk about it, but let's talk about it using the actual terms and technical language.  If you can't do that, then you have no business using it as any kind of argument because you don't understand it.

To continue, please explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what symmetry breaking is, in context of the early universe.  Explain why it's important and the role the both inflation and gravity may have played in it.

Again, if you can't do that, then I really suggest you quit using words that you don't understand.

Hmm..you want evidence and I give evidence. Tou want citations and I give citations. Now you want in my own words but that first paragraph to Robbin on the big bang was my own words.

...but funny how you only provide opinion

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4465
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,13:12   

Quote

Wesley, I misread that question but partly because I already provided evidence with the  big bang  (from chaos) quotes and the image of earth (order) that I posted above.


You've left out exactly the bit that comprises what you assert, but have failed to demonstrate.

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

    
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,13:49   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2011,13:01)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:32)
   
Quote
Here's an analogy that actually works.  A Dachshund is a dog right?  Canis familaris right?  A Great Dane is a dog, right?  Same species right... and yet radically different.

That’s not mutation but rather domestic manipulation of preexisting ancestral phenotypes

The dog's genome says you are wrong.

Would you be more specific about your hypothesis of "domestic manipulation"? How would it occur, physiologically?
EDIT. This is relevant: http://www.sciencemag.org/content....bstract
Full text: http://www27.brinkster.com/taisets....ent.pdf
Read this and tell us your conclusion, please.

Very interesting article but the dogs that Ogre and I were discussing are not hairless. The fossil record reveals a very wide diversity of wild and domestic dogs and these dogs were purposely bred for desired traits for many millennium

These so called hairless breeds are actually often fully haired as seen above. The mutation is somewhat deleterious in that the hairless forms have missing and/or deformed teeth and are to be kept mostly indoors from the sun. The coated forms do not have these problems.

These hairless dogs were once bred for ritualistic purposes but mostly for consumption. Hairlessness in fact, facilitates for food preparation

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,14:03   

The fact remains that many phenotypes in dogs have been linked to specific mutations.
I believe a major determinant of body size was identified, and published in Nature or Science a few years ago.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,14:53   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,13:11)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,08:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,22:14)
explosions

Dude,

Explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the difference between hyper-inflation and a matter/anti-matter explosion.

If you can't do this, then you don't understand what scientists are talking about.

I'll add that when a scientist is talking (much like we're doing here), the scientist must reduce the technical language and use more common words that the listeners understand so as not to confuse the listeners and not to bore them.  Unfortunately, this often reduces the accuracy of the statements by the scientists... which is then quote-mine fodder for jerks like you who don't understand (or don't care) that they are taking things out of context.

For example, I have often used the word explosion in referring to the Big Bang... to 3rd graders.  After that, I use inflation, often demonstrating with a balloon.

If you really want to talk cosmology, then let's talk about it, but let's talk about it using the actual terms and technical language.  If you can't do that, then you have no business using it as any kind of argument because you don't understand it.

To continue, please explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what symmetry breaking is, in context of the early universe.  Explain why it's important and the role the both inflation and gravity may have played in it.

Again, if you can't do that, then I really suggest you quit using words that you don't understand.

Hmm..you want evidence and I give evidence. Tou want citations and I give citations. Now you want in my own words but that first paragraph to Robbin on the big bang was my own words.

...but funny how you only provide opinion

I'm sorry, you failed to actually answer the questions.

Again, explain the following IN YOUR OWN words.

hyper-inflation
explosion
symmetry breaking (in terms of the 3 minute universe)

I'll also note that you completely FAIL to understand the concept of 'explosion' as metaphor.

The Cambrian 'explosion' lasted for some 50 million odd years.  That's a heck of an explosion.  Why don't YOU show that you understand this by posting the lengths of those 'explosions' you mentioned.  

Funny how EVERYTHING I say can be cited and nothing you claim (except for metaphor) is.  You haven't asked for citations.  Further, if you did, then I predict you would use the classic creationist tactic of demanding evidence for something that no biologist thinks happened anyway... for example, your erroneous thinking that fruit flies should mutate into dogs eventually.

Look, it's very simple.  You are trying to argue some seriously advanced concepts without even a freshman high school student's understanding of the basics.

Why don't we get the basics down first?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,15:32   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,19:01)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 22 2011,06:55)
So Einstein used "designer-ish" language/believed in Spinozan deism therefore Jesus?

Great well that's that settled. Pub anyone?

Oh wait...

...maybe there are a few missing steps in your reasoning. I'm wondering if you'd accept the argument "Bertrand Russell did not use "designer-ish" language/did not believe in Spinozan deism therefore no Jesus". I'm guessing not. Perhaps reflect on why.

Louis

Said nothing of the sort. I simply asserted that he believed in ID

Fuck me, you're too stupid to recognise your own schtick when repeated to you.

Well, this is going to be worth my time, I can see the point went wooshing above you.

Louis

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

  
paragwinn



Posts: 376
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,19:38   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,20:32)
Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.

AnalogyFAIL.

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. -forastero

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,19:41   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,14:53)
Dude,

Explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, the difference between hyper-inflation and a matter/anti-matter explosion.

If you can't do this, then you don't understand what scientists are talking about.

I'll add that when a scientist is talking (much like we're doing here), the scientist must reduce the technical language and use more common words that the listeners understand so as not to confuse the listeners and not to bore them.  Unfortunately, this often reduces the accuracy of the statements by the scientists... which is then quote-mine fodder for jerks like you who don't understand (or don't care) that they are taking things out of context.

For example, I have often used the word explosion in referring to the Big Bang... to 3rd graders.  After that, I use inflation, often demonstrating with a balloon.

If you really want to talk cosmology, then let's talk about it, but let's talk about it using the actual terms and technical language.  If you can't do that, then you have no business using it as any kind of argument because you don't understand it.

To continue, please explain, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, what symmetry breaking is, in context of the early universe.  Explain why it's important and the role the both inflation and gravity may have played in it.

Again, if you can't do that, then I really suggest you quit using words that you don't understand.[/quote]
Hmm..you want evidence and I give evidence. Tou want citations and I give citations. Now you want in my own words but that first paragraph to Robbin on the big bang was my own words.

...but funny how you only provide opinion[/quote]
I'm sorry, you failed to actually answer the questions.

Again, explain the following IN YOUR OWN words.

hyper-inflation
explosion
symmetry breaking (in terms of the 3 minute universe)

I'll also note that you completely FAIL to understand the concept of 'explosion' as metaphor.

The Cambrian 'explosion' lasted for some 50 million odd years.  That's a heck of an explosion.  Why don't YOU show that you understand this by posting the lengths of those 'explosions' you mentioned.  

Funny how EVERYTHING I say can be cited and nothing you claim (except for metaphor) is.  You haven't asked for citations.  Further, if you did, then I predict you would use the classic creationist tactic of demanding evidence for something that no biologist thinks happened anyway... for example, your erroneous thinking that fruit flies should mutate into dogs eventually.

Look, it's very simple.  You are trying to argue some seriously advanced concepts without even a freshman high school student's understanding of the basics.

Why don't we get the basics down first?

50 million years? Thats not at empirical and you sound like the fellow who believes gravity created all all that order in that image I provided in the last page

Anyway, most top cosmologists disagree with you in that they describe two process--a titanic explosion or thermonuclear explosion or primordial fireball leading to expansion and they are not calling it a metaphor

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....MHH378Q

The first minutes of the titanic explosion (Inflation theory): But how are the elements in the universe formed? The scientist “Alan Guth” answered this questions as he discovered another theory which is the ‘inflation theory’, and it was accepted by every scientist, and in this theory he explained the first 3 minutes after the titanic explosion, according to this theory the titanic explosion followed by a huge fireball in an extreme temperature after one part from many millions parts of a second, the temperature decreased to 1022 K, where the fundamental bodies is formed and after 10- 6 seconds the ‘singularity’ became as big as a solar system (it’s radius is 588 x 1010 ),when the temperature became 109 K the radiation became to be emitted after the first second the reaction stopped but universe is still expending until now. The “inflation” theory is considered very important because we knew the 1st minutes after the “Titanic explosion”, and it’s very mysterious explosion because it’s not such a normal explosion to the matter in space but it was the explosion of space itself. http://library.thinkquest.org/C005731....th.html


Alan Guth: We do have a number of pieces of information that we can put together to try use as a basis for constructing theories. Observations about the distributions of galaxies within the visible part of the universe, and the motions of galaxies. Also now very important are observations of the cosmic background radiation — radiation that we believe is the afterglow of the big bang’s explosion itself. http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth

The birth of a new universe also does not affect the old one. It would take about 10?37 seconds to disconnect from its parent. However, all an observer would see is the formation of a black hole, which would disappear very quickly. Creating a new universe actually would be quite dangerous since it would result in the release of energy similar to that of a 500 kiloton explosion. http://www.thefullwiki.org/Alan_Gu....an_Guth

An answer came in 1979 when physicist Alan Guth proposed that, just after the primal explosion, the universe temporarily kicked into overdrive and began wildly expanding, doubling and doubling and doubling again. This inflationary epoch lasted the tiniest fraction of a second. But according to the calculations, this was enough to even out the radiation and flatten the curvature — to smooth out the wrinkles in the Big Bang. The Cosmological constant was back. http://www.hbci.com/~wenona....ang.htm

Today, the researchers who make up the Grand Challenge Cosmology Consortium (GC3) harness the power of supercomputers to look at the birth and infancy of the universe, starting from the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion which is believed to have started it all about 15 billion years ago. GC3 is a collaboration between cosmologists, astrophysicists, and computer scientists studying the formation of large-scale cosmological structure.
http://www.nsf.gov/news....ers.jsp

Readhead, with Caltech colleagues Steve Padin and Timothy Pearson and others from Canada, Chile and the United States, generated the finest measurements to date of the cosmic microwave background. Cosmic microwave background (CMB) is a record of the first photons that escaped from the rapidly cooling, coalescing universe about 300,000 years after the cosmic explosion known as the Big Bang that is commonly believed to have given birth to the universe. http://www.nsf.gov/od....241.htm

According to current estimates, it burst into being 13.7 billion years ago in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang, with the galaxies congealing out of the cooling debris.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science....ed.html

About 13.7 billion years ago, the Universe burst into being in a titanic explosion called the Big Bang. Out of the expanding and cooling debris eventually congealed the galaxies, great islands of stars of which our own Milky Way is one. http://royalsociety.org/news....ig-bang

Eminent Scientist George Gamow and other scientists believe that Big Bang was a nuclear explosion. Gamow with his collaborators Ralph Alpher, Robert Hermann and James W. Follin, explored how chemical elements like helium and lithium could have been produced out of primordial hydrogen by thermonuclear reactions during the Big Bang. George Gamow put forward a hot Big Bang model in which primordial substance, or ylem, from which all other matter was created was an extraordinarily hot, dense singularity that exploded in a "Big Bang" and has been expanding ever since.
http://www.eurekaencyclopedia.com/index.p....undance

The term primordial fireball refers to this early time in the Universe. As the Universe continued to expand, its temperature and density dropped, allowing for the formation of atoms. This is known as the 'epoch of recombination', and it was at this time that photons could travel freely throughout the Universe for the first time. The Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) is the record of these photons at the moment of their escape.
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos....ireball

About 3 seconds after the Big Bang, nucleosynthesis set in with protons and neutrons beginning to form the nuclei of simple elements, predominantly hydrogen and helium, yet for the first 100,000 years after the initial hot explosion there was no matter of the form we know today. http://www.thebigview.com/spaceti....se.html

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,20:14   

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 22 2011,19:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,20:32)
Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.

AnalogyFAIL.

Clearly I was referring to a testicle or scrotal hernia. In fact, a common treatment for testicle and umbilical hernia is castration. Eunuch of antiquity had all the private removed.

Graphic hernia medical procedure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....QxvkZ2Y

  
Woodbine



Posts: 753
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,20:20   

Is this Batsh^t77?

That cut 'n' paste link-fest above seems awfully familiar.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,20:52   

I get the impression this is a load of bollocks.

Louis

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,20:59   

Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 22 2011,21:20)
Is this Batsh^t77?

That cut 'n' paste link-fest above seems awfully familiar.

Needz moar utoobz.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
paragwinn



Posts: 376
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,21:38   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,18:14)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 22 2011,19:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,20:32)
Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.

AnalogyFAIL.

Clearly I was referring to a testicle or scrotal hernia. In fact, a common treatment for testicle and umbilical hernia is castration. Eunuch of antiquity had all the private removed.

Graphic hernia medical procedure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....QxvkZ2Y

No, you were not clear. Castration doesn't make someone immune to hernias. Since hernias in general involve a weakness in the abdominal wall, eunuchs would still be susceptible. With about 750,000 hernia repairs in people occurring every year, castration is NOT a common treatment for them.
And you might want to read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....h) about the kinds of eunuchs and the roles they played in various societies.

Why do I bother addressing this failed analogy? Because ID supporters such as yourself always get it wrong on the details, consistently re-affirming the statement made by Dr. Dr. Dembski himself, that ID does not concern itself with a "pathetic level of detail." You rely on ambiguity and the "popular" understanding of terms to make your arguments sound more informed than they really are. The mis-application of analogy only serves to highlight the weakness of your argument.

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. -forastero

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,21:42   

blah blah blah...

so you admit that you can't explain it in your own words?

Oh, and you are wrong... most scientists do NOT describe the beginning of the universe as a huge explosion.  Protons didn't even exist for the first second of the universe (I may have been wrong earlier... I didn't bother to look it up... now I have).

Atoms didn't exist for the first 3 minutes of the universe.  Therefore it couldn't have been CAUSED by a thermonuclear explosion... nuclei didn't exist.

Nucelosynthesis (i.e. the formation of nuclei) only occurred between 3-20 minutes AFTER the Big Bang began.  Nucleosynthesis results in lots of hydrogen and a little helium being formed through thermonuclear fusion.  Fusion STOPS after 20 minutes into the process because the universe has cooled and the density has lowered to the point where fusion can no longer occur.

Now, here is a list of cosmology texts and reference texts.  Find one, just a single one that states (as you do) the CAUSE of the Big Bang is a real chemical or nuclear explosion. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright....ib.html

Again, if you don't know these simple facts and how they came to be regarded as facts, then you are poorly educated and really need to learn some basic cosmology before even beginning to argue it.

Again, I'm willing to teach you, but you have not indicated that you are willing to learn.

Just to be perfectly clear you are arguing against and ANALOGY that is usually used in elementary schools.  One that is known to be incorrect, but because of its absolute simplicity is good for those students who have not reached the sophistication of 7th or 8th grade.

Now, let's talk about the Cambrian 'explosion'.  I'm not sure what you're complain actually is, but being as you scoffed at my 50 million years (are you a young Earth creationist?  really?) let's discuss... no, let me explain the facts of basic geology to you, then you can go cry.

Here's an article that gives some of the radiometric dates for the Cambrian time frame.
Jago, J.B.; Haines, P.W. (1998). "Recent radiometric dating of some Cambrian rocks in southern Australia: relevance to the Cambrian time scale". Revista Española de Paleontología: 115–22.

Now, the Cambrian is the Geologic period that begins the Paleozoic and ends with the Ordivician.  Before you get all huffy, you need to understand that the geologic period was named well before the discovery of the massive radiation of life was known during it.

The precise date of the Cambrian will probably be officially declared to be 542 million years ago (plus or minus about 300,000) based on three major lines of evidence.  The first is called the carbon anomaly.  It is a sudden drop in the presence of carbon-13 in the rock layers.  Interestingly, this coincides with the second reason which is that of a notable horizon of volcanic ash that is calculated to the same age.  Which further explains the third line of reasoning which is the mass extinction of pre-cambrian fossils.
(Gradstein, F.M.; Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.G., others (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press.)

The Ordovician is marked at 488.3 mya+- 1.7 million years based on another major extinction event.  Coincidentally, it also matches well with the spread of trilobites, conodonts, and graptolites, which, do to their uniqueness and variations over time are fantastic index fossils.

Since 50 million years isn't precise enough for you, then I'll go with 53.7 million years plus or minus 2 million years.  I realize that the level of error is longer than humans have existed, but we're looking backwards half a billion years.

Is that sufficiently precise?

I will note that you have STILL failed to provide any evidence or support ANY of your assertions and still believe that evidence is based on quotes.  

I have provide some of the materials I used, feel free to look them up and if you find a mistake, do let the nobel prize committee know.  I would suggest you discuss it here before claiming such a mistake though, it would be really embarrassing to declare someone in error because you don't understand the difference between laptons, haydrons, and baryons.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2011,21:54   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2011,14:03)
The fact remains that many phenotypes in dogs have been linked to specific mutations.
I believe a major determinant of body size was identified, and published in Nature or Science a few years ago.

That article is actually quite interesting.  It points to something that creationists absolutely loathe to hear... that is, simple changes can result in huge morphological variation.

And they, like forastero here, cannot understand that it doesn't matter what we THINK the mutation is (helpful or harmful), what really matters is what actually happens in the environment.

Since dogs have been completely linked with humans for the last few thousand years, it is easy to show how that hairless mutation resulted in a positive advantage for the dog.  They became sacred animals.  In other words, they got all their food and shelter provided to them and no human would harm or allow harm to come them... thus spreading the mutation.

It doesn't matter if the mutation made it impossible for the dogs to go outside or they had bad teeth.  The mutation made the dogs into objects of worship by humans, which massively increased their chances of survival and reproduction.

Same thing happens in nature.  forastero complains about the sickle cell anemia gene.  Of course it's detrimental, but the heterozygous condition is a LOT LESS detrimental than either of the homozygous conditions in an environment with malaria.

This isn't rocket science.  BTW: You still haven't defined, in your own words, what heterozygous and homozygous mean, so I can't be sure that you even understand me.

Nor, have you, forastero explained ANYTHING about the supposed link between the endocrine system and the selection of phenotypes.  I am really, really interested in this... any evidence or even any supporting document for your claim?  Do you even know what a phenotype is?  It really doesn't sound like it.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,02:12   

Other relevant reads for our guest:
adaptive allele in deer mice
alleles controlling mimmicry in butterflies
gene controlling armor plates and ecological adaptation in sticklebacks
opsin genes drive speciation in cichlid fishes

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,02:21   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,21:54)
Nor, have you, forastero explained ANYTHING about the supposed link between the endocrine system and the selection of phenotypes.  I am really, really interested in this... any evidence or even any supporting document for your claim?  Do you even know what a phenotype is?  It really doesn't sound like it.

I'm quitei interested in hearing this theory too. If the endocrine system selects phenotypes, it means that it is confronted to different phenotypes. Is the same endocrine system shared by several individuals, somehow?

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,02:55   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,02:12)
Other relevant reads for our guest:
adaptive allele in deer mice
alleles controlling mimmicry in butterflies
gene controlling armor plates and ecological adaptation in sticklebacks
opsin genes drive speciation in cichlid fishes

Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "

The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with

Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks  

What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies

Thanks

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,03:40   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,21:42)
blah blah blah...

so you admit that you can't explain it in your own words?

Oh, and you are wrong... most scientists do NOT describe the beginning of the universe as a huge explosion.  Protons didn't even exist for the first second of the universe (I may have been wrong earlier... I didn't bother to look it up... now I have).

Atoms didn't exist for the first 3 minutes of the universe.  Therefore it couldn't have been CAUSED by a thermonuclear explosion... nuclei didn't exist.

Nucelosynthesis (i.e. the formation of nuclei) only occurred between 3-20 minutes AFTER the Big Bang began.  Nucleosynthesis results in lots of hydrogen and a little helium being formed through thermonuclear fusion.  Fusion STOPS after 20 minutes into the process because the universe has cooled and the density has lowered to the point where fusion can no longer occur.

Now, here is a list of cosmology texts and reference texts.  Find one, just a single one that states (as you do) the CAUSE of the Big Bang is a real chemical or nuclear explosion. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright....ib.html

Again, if you don't know these simple facts and how they came to be regarded as facts, then you are poorly educated and really need to learn some basic cosmology before even beginning to argue it.

Again, I'm willing to teach you, but you have not indicated that you are willing to learn.

Just to be perfectly clear you are arguing against and ANALOGY that is usually used in elementary schools.  One that is known to be incorrect, but because of its absolute simplicity is good for those students who have not reached the sophistication of 7th or 8th grade.

Now, let's talk about the Cambrian 'explosion'.  I'm not sure what you're complain actually is, but being as you scoffed at my 50 million years (are you a young Earth creationist?  really?) let's discuss... no, let me explain the facts of basic geology to you, then you can go cry.

Here's an article that gives some of the radiometric dates for the Cambrian time frame.
Jago, J.B.; Haines, P.W. (1998). "Recent radiometric dating of some Cambrian rocks in southern Australia: relevance to the Cambrian time scale". Revista Española de Paleontología: 115–22.

Now, the Cambrian is the Geologic period that begins the Paleozoic and ends with the Ordivician.  Before you get all huffy, you need to understand that the geologic period was named well before the discovery of the massive radiation of life was known during it.

The precise date of the Cambrian will probably be officially declared to be 542 million years ago (plus or minus about 300,000) based on three major lines of evidence.  The first is called the carbon anomaly.  It is a sudden drop in the presence of carbon-13 in the rock layers.  Interestingly, this coincides with the second reason which is that of a notable horizon of volcanic ash that is calculated to the same age.  Which further explains the third line of reasoning which is the mass extinction of pre-cambrian fossils.
(Gradstein, F.M.; Ogg, J.G., Smith, A.G., others (2004). A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press.)

The Ordovician is marked at 488.3 mya+- 1.7 million years based on another major extinction event.  Coincidentally, it also matches well with the spread of trilobites, conodonts, and graptolites, which, do to their uniqueness and variations over time are fantastic index fossils.

Since 50 million years isn't precise enough for you, then I'll go with 53.7 million years plus or minus 2 million years.  I realize that the level of error is longer than humans have existed, but we're looking backwards half a billion years.

Is that sufficiently precise?

I will note that you have STILL failed to provide any evidence or support ANY of your assertions and still believe that evidence is based on quotes.  

I have provide some of the materials I used, feel free to look them up and if you find a mistake, do let the nobel prize committee know.  I would suggest you discuss it here before claiming such a mistake though, it would be really embarrassing to declare someone in error because you don't understand the difference between laptons, haydrons, and baryons.

Again more so called pseudoempericism and to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years.

And your first and only link is a bit broad wouldn’t you say? Thus, I just went to the first book and whata ya know. http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

..and no good evidence for intermediates so your priests came up with super sun god powered punctuated equilibrium

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,03:51   

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 22 2011,21:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,18:14)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 22 2011,19:38)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,20:32)
Its merely a loss of genetic information that allows one to better tolerate something; like a eunuch being immune to hernias.

AnalogyFAIL.

Clearly I was referring to a testicle or scrotal hernia. In fact, a common treatment for testicle and umbilical hernia is castration. Eunuch of antiquity had all the private removed.

Graphic hernia medical procedure http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....QxvkZ2Y

No, you were not clear. Castration doesn't make someone immune to hernias. Since hernias in general involve a weakness in the abdominal wall, eunuchs would still be susceptible. With about 750,000 hernia repairs in people occurring every year, castration is NOT a common treatment for them.
And you might want to read here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......ki....h) about the kinds of eunuchs and the roles they played in various societies.

Why do I bother addressing this failed analogy? Because ID supporters such as yourself always get it wrong on the details, consistently re-affirming the statement made by Dr. Dr. Dembski himself, that ID does not concern itself with a "pathetic level of detail." You rely on ambiguity and the "popular" understanding of terms to make your arguments sound more informed than they really are. The mis-application of analogy only serves to highlight the weakness of your argument.

Yep, fist sentence of your wiki eunuch says Eunuchs of old were typically castrated

which of coarse made them immune to testicular hernias

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,04:04   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,21:54)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 22 2011,14:03)
The fact remains that many phenotypes in dogs have been linked to specific mutations.
I believe a major determinant of body size was identified, and published in Nature or Science a few years ago.

That article is actually quite interesting.  It points to something that creationists absolutely loathe to hear... that is, simple changes can result in huge morphological variation.

And they, like forastero here, cannot understand that it doesn't matter what we THINK the mutation is (helpful or harmful), what really matters is what actually happens in the environment.

Since dogs have been completely linked with humans for the last few thousand years, it is easy to show how that hairless mutation resulted in a positive advantage for the dog.  They became sacred animals.  In other words, they got all their food and shelter provided to them and no human would harm or allow harm to come them... thus spreading the mutation.

It doesn't matter if the mutation made it impossible for the dogs to go outside or they had bad teeth.  The mutation made the dogs into objects of worship by humans, which massively increased their chances of survival and reproduction.

Same thing happens in nature.  forastero complains about the sickle cell anemia gene.  Of course it's detrimental, but the heterozygous condition is a LOT LESS detrimental than either of the homozygous conditions in an environment with malaria.

This isn't rocket science.  BTW: You still haven't defined, in your own words, what heterozygous and homozygous mean, so I can't be sure that you even understand me.

Nor, have you, forastero explained ANYTHING about the supposed link between the endocrine system and the selection of phenotypes.  I am really, really interested in this... any evidence or even any supporting document for your claim?  Do you even know what a phenotype is?  It really doesn't sound like it.

Ogre, The consumption of hairless dogs nearly drove them to extinction and they are still fairly rare even after lots of efforts to revive them

btw, I am still working on some of your other answers above

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,04:18   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,02:55)
Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "

The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with

Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks  

What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies

Thanks

Were you not arguing that mutations where merely "mistakes" which could not cause adaptation? The 4 papers I linked to show the contrary, even though some details may remain unknown.

On the other hand, would you quote an evolutionary biologist saying that a mutation should turn a bacterium into a non-bacterium (an eukaryote?), or a fruit fly into non-fruit fly? I'll wait.

You are intellectually dishonest.

  
paragwinn



Posts: 376
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,04:31   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,01:51)
Yep, fist sentence of your wiki eunuch says Eunuchs of old were typically castrated

which of coarse made them immune to testicular hernias

Evidently,  you didnt read much further. Eunuchs also included those who were impotent or celibate while still having testicles. And now with chemical castration, 'eunuchs' can still experience testicular hernias.

Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. -forastero

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,04:35   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40)
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list.
There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans.
So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion".

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,04:51   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:18)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,02:55)
Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "

The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with

Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks  

What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies

Thanks

Were you not arguing that mutations where merely "mistakes" which could not cause adaptation? The 4 papers I linked to show the contrary, even though some details may remain unknown.

On the other hand, would you quote an evolutionary biologist saying that a mutation should turn a bacterium into a non-bacterium (an eukaryote?), or a fruit fly into non-fruit fly? I'll wait.

You are intellectually dishonest.

Hmm well your abstracts actually dont tell us anything about  mutations do they; but how do you explain evolutionism's primordial soup to sea scorpions? Aliens maybe, Shiva and Vishnu?

  
paragwinn



Posts: 376
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,04:52   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,02:35)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40)
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list.
There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans.
So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion".

forastero must be a big fan of director/producer Michael Bay (Transformers, Armegeddon, Bad Boys, Meat Loaf: Bat Out of Hell 2)

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. -forastero

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,04:53   

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,01:51)
Yep, fist sentence of your wiki eunuch says Eunuchs of old were typically castrated

which of coarse made them immune to testicular hernias

Evidently,  you didnt read much further. Eunuchs also included those who were impotent or celibate while still having testicles. And now with chemical castration, 'eunuchs' can still experience testicular hernias.

Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

You are welcome to add your own examples

Again, lots of Eunuchs are immune to scrotal hernias

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,04:55   

Mutations cannot be easily described in an abstract, no. An abstract is not suited for nucleotide sequence alignments.

And there is a difference between a single mutation and billions of mutations (and between evolution and abiogenesis as well).

Quote
how do you explain evolutionism's primordial soup to sea scorpions? Aliens maybe, Shiva and Vishnu?

Sounds like ID to me.  :)

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,04:56   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:35)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40)
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list.
There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans.
So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion".

Oh yeah they're all described but your high priest dont really like to think about them all that much

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,04:57   

Link to each one, please.
And evidence that they are ignored by evolutionary biologists.
I bet that whenever such "explosion" was described, it wasn't described first by a creationist.

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,05:03   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:55)
Mutations cannot be easily described in an abstract, no. An abstract is not suited for nucleotide sequence alignments.

And there is a difference between a single mutation and billions of mutations (and between evolution and abiogenesis as well).

Quote
how do you explain evolutionism's primordial soup to sea scorpions? Aliens maybe, Shiva and Vishnu?

Sounds like ID to me.  :)

I am  really interested in your brand of evolution, for it seems different than the other members

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,05:04   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:57)
Link to each one, please.
And evidence that they are ignored by evolutionary biologists.

Try google with these things " "

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,05:07   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:57)
Link to each one, please.
And evidence that they are ignored by evolutionary biologists.
I bet that whenever such "explosion" was described, it wasn't described first by a creationist.

The evidence is that you havnt heard of them cant seem to find them

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,05:07   

So you have nothing? I thought so.

I think the ball is in your camp. What's your theory of evolution/creation? You were quite specific about the endocrine system. Tell us more about it.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,05:11   

Quote
I am  really interested in your brand of evolution, for it seems different than the other members

Go read a textbook on evolutionary theory. The one by Mark Ridley is quite good.
You need to be familiar with general biology and genetics though.

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,05:12   

Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,05:15   

I don't think you are granted editing rights as a new member, but you can still ask the forum admin/moderator.

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,05:15   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,05:11)
Quote
I am  really interested in your brand of evolution, for it seems different than the other members

Go read a textbook on evolutionary theory. The one by Mark Ridley is quite good.
You need to be familiar with general biology and genetics though.

but on the bottom of page 2, you alluded to the fact that mutations dont make bacteria evolve into anything beyond bacteria

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,05:20   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,05:15)
I don't think you are granted editing rights as a new member, but you can still ask the forum admin/moderator.

Oh darn

but thanks

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,05:22   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,05:11)
Quote
I am  really interested in your brand of evolution, for it seems different than the other members

Go read a textbook on evolutionary theory. The one by Mark Ridley is quite good.
You need to be familiar with general biology and genetics though.

Oh and I will check that book out

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,05:29   

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:52)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,02:35)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40)
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

I'm not a paleontologist, but google doesn't find much about many of the "explosions" you list.
There are results about a "pleistocene explosion", which refer to a population expansion in humans.
So I am not sure how you interpret the term "explosion".

forastero must be a big fan of director/producer Michael Bay (Transformers, Armegeddon, Bad Boys, Meat Loaf: Bat Out of Hell 2)

Actually not really

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,06:28   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:15)
on the bottom of page 2, you alluded to the fact that mutations dont make bacteria evolve into anything beyond bacteria

I said    
Quote
would you quote an evolutionary biologist saying that a mutation should turn a bacterium into a non-bacterium (an eukaryote?), or a fruit fly into non-fruit fly?

in response to:
 
Quote
What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies

So it wasn't clear whether you expected a single mutation to turn an organism into a completely different one.
Regarding the mutationS that turned non-fruit flies into fruit flies, they are the many mutationS that differentiate the genome of the common ancestor of fruit flies (Drosophila) from the genome of the common ancestor of [Drosophila and another non-fruit fly genus], assuming such ancestor would not be called "fruit fly". Needless to say, these mutation have accumulated in millions of years in the natural environment and are not expected to be reproduced in the lab during a scientist's lifetime. But researchers have found mutations governing specific phenotypes, wing patterns in particular.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,07:36   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,02:55)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,02:12)
Other relevant reads for our guest:
adaptive allele in deer mice
alleles controlling mimmicry in butterflies
gene controlling armor plates and ecological adaptation in sticklebacks
opsin genes drive speciation in cichlid fishes

Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "

The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with

Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks  

What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies

Thanks

Mutations, of course, which don't exist, nor are they expected to exist.

It's really quite offensive to have to say something several times.

No one expects fruit flies to turn into dogs, except creationists.

You may now stop using this strawman fallacy.

However, as I said, you have but to ask and anyone of us can provide dozens of papers, probably hundreds, of speciation events and I know of at least one genus change in a single generation.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,07:52   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40)
Again more so called pseudoempericism and to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years.

And your first and only link is a bit broad wouldn’t you say? Thus, I just went to the first book and whata ya know. http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

..and no good evidence for intermediates so your priests came up with super sun god powered punctuated equilibrium

You are making claims, then you need to support them.  Please provide evidence for you assertion that any of the fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time.  The mere fact that you are using a computer shows that this is wrong.

Further, astronomers can see backwards in time and observe that the fundamental forces of our universe are the same 13 billion years ago as the are now.  

You can just ignore the evidence, but it just makes you look like a dummy.   Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Now, as to the book... here's what it says in regards to an explosion:
Quote

The term 'Big Bang' implies some sort of explosion, which is a not wholly inappropriate analogy, except that the Big Bang was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space.


So, what exploded?  It couldn't have been a thermonuclear explosion as you think since matter didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang.  It couldn't have been matter/anti-matter, etc.

Do you see that word 'analogy'?  A not wholly appropriate analogy.

You are making an argument about AN ANALOGY.  This is just another strawman argument and has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

Tell you what, I know that you won't, but why don't you tell me what the Cambrian explosion is.  In your own words, describe what exploded and when and how. Go ahead, describe in detail.

Then you bring up an entirely new argument (typical of creationists) without satisfactorily completing any of the prior arguments.  Intermediates?

There are thousands of peer-reviewed articles showing intermediates.  Heck, you are an intermediate between your parents and your children.  Duh.

Now, let's see what do we need from you:

define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time

And now you want to talk about intermediates?

Gish Gallop on!

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,07:54   

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,01:51)
Yep, fist sentence of your wiki eunuch says Eunuchs of old were typically castrated

which of coarse made them immune to testicular hernias

Evidently,  you didnt read much further. Eunuchs also included those who were impotent or celibate while still having testicles. And now with chemical castration, 'eunuchs' can still experience testicular hernias.

Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

So removing the testicles means you are immune to testicular hernias... that makes sense (forastero still doesn't though).

What about any of the other types of hernias?  Would removal of the testicles prevent those as well?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,07:57   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,04:51)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,04:18)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,02:55)
Jeannot, your first link concludes with: "While it is clear that a derived increase in Agouti expression leads to wider hair bands and lighter camouflaging color, whether and by which mechanism an amino acid deletion (a?Ser) leads to a change in gene expression and ultimately phenotypic evolution is still unknown. "

The other links all have abstracts about what seems to be phenotypic variation that no one here has an argument with

Moreover, the mice remain interbreeding mice, the butterflies remain interbreeding butterflies,the chiclids remain interbreeding cichlids, and the sticklebacks remain interbreeding sticklebacks  

What we are really really interested in are all these so called mutations that supposedly turn bacteria into something other than bacteria or fruit flies into something other than fruit flies

Thanks

Were you not arguing that mutations where merely "mistakes" which could not cause adaptation? The 4 papers I linked to show the contrary, even though some details may remain unknown.

On the other hand, would you quote an evolutionary biologist saying that a mutation should turn a bacterium into a non-bacterium (an eukaryote?), or a fruit fly into non-fruit fly? I'll wait.

You are intellectually dishonest.

Hmm well your abstracts actually dont tell us anything about  mutations do they; but how do you explain evolutionism's primordial soup to sea scorpions? Aliens maybe, Shiva and Vishnu?

And yet, another new topic of discussion.

You really do not want to argue origins of life chemistry with me, child.

Why don't we stick to the list of things we have and finish those up, hmmm?

Tell you what though, I'll add OOL to our list for discussion later.

BUT

We have forgotten a major component of our discussion.  Let's play a little game, shall we.

OK, evolution is no more.  What replaces it?  What evidence do you have for what replaces it?  What tools, processes, and knowledge come from what replaces it?

I know the answer, do you?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Quack



Posts: 1748
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,08:34   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,11:37)
Mutations are genetic mistakes or accidents that didnt get fixed by by genetic repair mechanisms

It is great that you accept mutations as a fact. It doesn't matter whether you like mutations; they are essential for life as we know it.

Do you have any idea about what life on this planet might have been without mutations? We wouldn't be here, that's for sure!

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
Quack



Posts: 1748
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,08:45   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
 
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,09:21   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
   
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Probably more regretting the "endocrine system determines phenotype" think.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,10:22   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,12:52)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2011,03:26)
The request of "evidence please" was made in a context that "forastero" ignores:

   
Quote

ID--superior designer made order from disorder


The quotes from Einstein are opinion, not evidence. In fact, the repeated theme of "deeply emotional conviction" is a big clue that even Einstein was aware that he wasn't offering evidence. Of course, people used to proof-texting get quite confused when running into a scientific discussion where quoting an authority's opinion doesn't further an argument.

Wesley, I misread that question but partly because I already provided evidence with the  big bang  (from chaos) quotes and the image of earth (order) that I posted above.



Actually you engaged in EPIC FAIL.  The entropy (disorder) of the universe has been increasing since the big bang (chaos) to a universe now containing the earth (order). Your argument is self-contradictory, though you are so ignorant you don't know the trivial misunderstanding that when addressed gives the solution.

You do not understand thermodynamics (or anything else) above 10 year old level, and evidently your superior designer is no more superior than the force of gravity, which explains the formation of the earth (order) from a dust cloud (chaos).

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,10:39   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,06:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

at the rate you are going you might as well forget about it

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

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

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,10:41   

I AM TWO STOPID TOO UNDERSTAND TIHNGS YOU EXPLAIN TWO ME ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HAIRLESS DOGS AND GOO TO YOU SO JESUS WIN FUCK OFF ATHIEST

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

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

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

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

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,11:28   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,09:21)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
   
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Probably more regretting the "endocrine system determines phenotype" think.

Why do so many of you so called scientists deny this ?

..and you still havnt answered how mutations and natural selection cause all the explosions of life that I mentioned above nor how a bacteria evolves from something besides a bacteria

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,11:42   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
   
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Likewise, why do so many so called scientists deny this?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,11:57   

This study might also be of interest: cristal structure of an ancient protein

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,11:58   

deny what, you credulous git?  that the cambrian explosion wasn't really an explosion?

i realize you are probably trying to sound stupid here as part of your shtick but i think you are overselling it a tad.  try backing off, mentioning hitler, more perhaps something about moral relativism, less about actual facts.  the dance will last longer.  just a thought luv

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

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

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

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

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:03   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:42)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Likewise, why do so many so called scientists deny this?

"I can't find evidence of it, which proves that scientists deny it, therefore I can't find any evidence of it, which proves that..."

(note, that may not apply to the whole the list, the cambrian "explosion" is well documented)

BTW, here's what google finds for your "pleistocene explosion": http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf
Hardly denied by the Darwinists.

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:10   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,07:52)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,03:40)
Again more so called pseudoempericism and to say that no kinds of radiometric contamination are alterations occurred in billions or even thousands of years is as ridiculous as saying dinosaur soft tissue can last millions of years.

And your first and only link is a bit broad wouldn’t you say? Thus, I just went to the first book and whata ya know. http://books.google.com/books?i....f=false

It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

..and no good evidence for intermediates so your priests came up with super sun god powered punctuated equilibrium

You are making claims, then you need to support them.  Please provide evidence for you assertion that any of the fundamental forces in our universe have changed over time.  The mere fact that you are using a computer shows that this is wrong.

Further, astronomers can see backwards in time and observe that the fundamental forces of our universe are the same 13 billion years ago as the are now.  

You can just ignore the evidence, but it just makes you look like a dummy.   Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Now, as to the book... here's what it says in regards to an explosion:
Quote

The term 'Big Bang' implies some sort of explosion, which is a not wholly inappropriate analogy, except that the Big Bang was not an explosion in space, but an explosion of space.


So, what exploded?  It couldn't have been a thermonuclear explosion as you think since matter didn't exist at the time of the Big Bang.  It couldn't have been matter/anti-matter, etc.

Do you see that word 'analogy'?  A not wholly appropriate analogy.

You are making an argument about AN ANALOGY.  This is just another strawman argument and has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

-I used nuclear explosion as just one of the ways some scientists explain the big bang but why on earth do you deny that nucleosynthesis explosions? Do you also deny nucleosynthesis from supernova explosions?

-I'm actually mostly just answering all the questions since you refuse to answer how mutations and natural selection creates life

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:28   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,11:58)
deny what, you credulous git?  that the cambrian explosion wasn't really an explosion?

i realize you are probably trying to sound stupid here as part of your shtick but i think you are overselling it a tad.  try backing off, mentioning hitler, more perhaps something about moral relativism, less about actual facts.  the dance will last longer.  just a thought luv

Then try to prove that it wasnt an explosion of benthic diversity

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:32   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:03)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:42)
 
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Likewise, why do so many so called scientists deny this?

"I can't find evidence of it, which proves that scientists deny it, therefore I can't find any evidence of it, which proves that..."

(note, that may not apply to the whole the list, the cambrian "explosion" is well documented)

BTW, here's what google finds for your "pleistocene explosion": http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf
Hardly denied by the Darwinists.

Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:38   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:28)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,09:21)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Probably more regretting the "endocrine system determines phenotype" think.

Why do so many of you so called scientists deny this ?

..and you still havnt answered how mutations and natural selection cause all the explosions of life that I mentioned above nor how a bacteria evolves from something besides a bacteria

We don't deny it.  We don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Explain, in detail (third request) how the endocrine system selects the phenotype.  In your explanation you need to define phenotype, define the endocrine system, explain the mechanism by which this occurs, and provide sufficient evidence that this is the case.

You have done none of this after multiple requests.  You are making a bald assertion with no evidence.

As to the 'explosions' of the Cambrian and whatever other eras, can you explain what exploded and the mechanism of those explosions.  Evidence for all claims and statements must be provided.  Otherwise, you're just blathering.

While, you are at it, I would appreciate links to peer-reviewed documentation that geologists and paleontologists recognize all of those 'explosions'.  Because I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

Prove me wrong.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:40   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:03)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:42)
 
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Likewise, why do so many so called scientists deny this?

"I can't find evidence of it, which proves that scientists deny it, therefore I can't find any evidence of it, which proves that..."

(note, that may not apply to the whole the list, the cambrian "explosion" is well documented)

BTW, here's what google finds for your "pleistocene explosion": http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf
Hardly denied by the Darwinists.

Interesting.  This paper is a completely different type of explosion than that of the Cambrian (and the Big Bang for that matter).

foastero, would you care to explain?

By that, I mean, all you doing is lumping words together without any apparent understanding of what is exploding.  Because there is a fundamental difference between the Cambrian explosion and that of the Pleistocene explosion (actually several), do you know what they are?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:42   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:43   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,11:57)
This study might also be of interest: cristal structure of an ancient protein

I will read that in a bit

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:49   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:54   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:10)
-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

-I used nuclear explosion as just one of the ways some scientists explain the big bang but why on earth do you deny that nucleosynthesis explosions? Do you also deny nucleosynthesis from supernova explosions?

-I'm actually mostly just answering all the questions since you refuse to answer how mutations and natural selection creates life

The sun is 'dying' (for some value of the word 'dying') by well understood processes that are consistent with constant values of the various fundamental forces of the universe.

BTW: "Uniformitarianism" is not used in the context of the universe, it is used in the context of Geology.

The Earth's rotational spin is slowing because of well understood processes that are consistent with the knowledge of the various fundamental forces of the universe. etc, etc, etc.

You keep using words.  I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

Quote
I used nuclear explosion as just one of the ways some scientists explain the big bang but why on earth do you deny that nucleosynthesis explosions? Do you also deny nucleosynthesis from supernova explosions?


Earth, Moon, and Stars you are dumb.  Please explain, in detail, how nuclear explosions could have happened WHEN THERE WERE NO NUCLEI?!?!?!?!?

I know what nucleosynthesis is and I know when it occurs, in the context of the Big Bang.  The Big Band cannot have been an explosion as defined by any common understanding of the chemical, nuclear, or subnuclear domains because those systems DID NOT EXIST until AFTER the Big Bang?  What the heck is so hard about this?

Any type of argument from analogy is doomed to failure.  If you want to talk about early cosmology, then talk about it, but use the actual language of the scientists (math might help) and quit using stupid analogies that are suitable for elementary students and the scientifically illiterate.

As to you last 'question'... you truly are an idiot aren't you?  mutations, natural selection, and evolution DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH creating life.  Those processes only work once you have life.

Once again, you create a strawman argument, then demand a level of explanation from scientists about a notion that they don't subscribe to all the while refusing to require the same level of detail from your own notions.  It's called intellectual cowardice.

Once again, the list of things you have yet to explain or even discuss, using your own words, to the level where someone might believe you know what you are talking about.

define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.

Everytime you say something, you really ought to consider whether you back support your claims.  Here, you will get called on them, each and every one.  Note, the additions from your list of claims onto the list of things you need to provide evidence for.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:56   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,12:38)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,11:28)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,09:21)
 
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 23 2011,08:45)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,05:12)
Hey how are you able to edit your posts? I have been trying to figure that out since I joined

You wouldn’t be regretting you wrote:
     
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions
?

Probably more regretting the "endocrine system determines phenotype" think.

Why do so many of you so called scientists deny this ?

..and you still havnt answered how mutations and natural selection cause all the explosions of life that I mentioned above nor how a bacteria evolves from something besides a bacteria

We don't deny it.  We don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Explain, in detail (third request) how the endocrine system selects the phenotype.  In your explanation you need to define phenotype, define the endocrine system, explain the mechanism by which this occurs, and provide sufficient evidence that this is the case.

You have done none of this after multiple requests.  You are making a bald assertion with no evidence.

As to the 'explosions' of the Cambrian and whatever other eras, can you explain what exploded and the mechanism of those explosions.  Evidence for all claims and statements must be provided.  Otherwise, you're just blathering.

While, you are at it, I would appreciate links to peer-reviewed documentation that geologists and paleontologists recognize all of those 'explosions'.  Because I don't think you have a clue what you're talking about.

Prove me wrong.

Actually you originally did seem to deny it on several occasions but you said you were going to teach me about my original question--how mutations and natural selection create new life or new orders or new genus

but you never do

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,12:57   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak

Seems you're not grasping the different meanings of "explosion".
So what are these "pleistocene explosionS"? Could you describe them in your own words, or at least link to the google results you found?

No one missed the fact that you have failed to substantiate any claim so far.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:00   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak

On the first page of Google results with "Pleistocene explosion"

There are four results that are from the paper Jeanot provided.  Each one referencing the paper.

There are three results on volcanic explosions of the pleistocene.

And one result describing the pleistocene explosion of human creativity.

The second page has results about the explosion of atheism, a drugstore, 5 more hits on the Rogers paper, and three more hits on volcanic explosions.

Sorry, no genetic diversity there.
Google results

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:02   

Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:57)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
   
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak

Seems you're not grasping the different meanings of "explosion".


No one missed the fact that you have failed to substantiate any claim so far.

However, he does seem to be smart enough to be a Double Naught Spy!

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:11   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)
Actually you originally did seem to deny it on several occasions but you said you were going to teach me about my original question--how mutations and natural selection create new life or new orders or new genus

but you never do

I deny that the endocrine system can influence phenotype or select phenotype.  You have yet to provide any evidence that this is case.

I was not going to teach you about how mutations and natural selection create new life... because they weren't involved in life to begin with.

I would be happy to educate you on how mutations and natural selection can create new SPECIES and in at least one known case, a new genus.  However, the 'new orders' is another fundamental misunderstanding you have about evolution and biology.

Are you willing to learn?  If you are then, we will have to take some very baby steps, because it is obvious that you have quite a few misunderstandings.

But the question remains, are you willing to learn?  That means reading carefully, that means actually considering new information and being honest.  It also means honestly answering any questions that may come up for you.  To that end, I would like to know where you get your current information from, so that I might best prepare some material to show you the deficiencies in that material.  Are you willing to do this?

You see, I can talk until I'm blue in the face, but unless you are willing to learn, then there isn't any point.  I can only judge your behavior by what I have seen here on this thread, and honestly, so far it is not impressive.

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose or not realizing it, but you have been caught in numerous logical fallacies... indeed, almost a textbook argument of the kind creationists use.  Argument by analogy, argument by authority, goalpost-shifting, quote-mining, and that's not to mention the fundamental mistakes in biology, chemistry, and physics so far.  Which, BTW, we have attempted to correct, but you don't seem to be interested in learning.

Just continuing to insist that the Big Bang was an actual explosion of the nuclear or (possibly sub-nuclear) kind shows that you have not even read some of the basics from actual scientists.

Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:16   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,12:54)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:10)
-Uniformitarianism is pseudoscience because in reality our sun is dying, the earths rotational spin is slowing, Lunar rotations are dissipating, ocean currents are slowing, the earth's internal heat is cooling, tectonics is slowing, star migration is slowing, the magnetic field is weakening, the hydrologic cycle is drying up, oceanic tides are weakening, fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years, bones are becoming less dense, etc.......

-I used nuclear explosion as just one of the ways some scientists explain the big bang but why on earth do you deny that nucleosynthesis explosions? Do you also deny nucleosynthesis from supernova explosions?

-I'm actually mostly just answering all the questions since you refuse to answer how mutations and natural selection creates life

The sun is 'dying' (for some value of the word 'dying') by well understood processes that are consistent with constant values of the various fundamental forces of the universe.

BTW: "Uniformitarianism" is not used in the context of the universe, it is used in the context of Geology.

The Earth's rotational spin is slowing because of well understood processes that are consistent with the knowledge of the various fundamental forces of the universe. etc, etc, etc.



Everytime you say something, you really ought to consider whether you back support your claims.  Here, you will get called on them, each and every one.  Note, the additions from your list of claims onto the list of things you need to provide evidence for.

To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again.  
but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:28   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,13:11)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)
Actually you originally did seem to deny it on several occasions but you said you were going to teach me about my original question--how mutations and natural selection create new life or new orders or new genus

but you never do

I deny that the endocrine system can influence phenotype or select phenotype.  You have yet to provide any evidence that this is case.

I was not going to teach you about how mutations and natural selection create new life... because they weren't involved in life to begin with.

I would be happy to educate you on how mutations and natural selection can create new SPECIES and in at least one known case, a new genus.  However, the 'new orders' is another fundamental misunderstanding you have about evolution and biology.

Are you willing to learn?  If you are then, we will have to take some very baby steps, because it is obvious that you have quite a few misunderstandings.

But the question remains, are you willing to learn?  That means reading carefully, that means actually considering new information and being honest.  It also means honestly answering any questions that may come up for you.  To that end, I would like to know where you get your current information from, so that I might best prepare some material to show you the deficiencies in that material.  Are you willing to do this?

You see, I can talk until I'm blue in the face, but unless you are willing to learn, then there isn't any point.  I can only judge your behavior by what I have seen here on this thread, and honestly, so far it is not impressive.

I don't know if you are doing this on purpose or not realizing it, but you have been caught in numerous logical fallacies... indeed, almost a textbook argument of the kind creationists use.  Argument by analogy, argument by authority, goalpost-shifting, quote-mining, and that's not to mention the fundamental mistakes in biology, chemistry, and physics so far.  Which, BTW, we have attempted to correct, but you don't seem to be interested in learning.

Just continuing to insist that the Big Bang was an actual explosion of the nuclear or (possibly sub-nuclear) kind shows that you have not even read some of the basics from actual scientists.

Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:30   

Oh and I meant fossil man is much more robust than modern man

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:38   

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

In some instances after selong separations or bottle necks like with the donkey, a critter will experience deletions due to inbreeding and will no longer retain a good ability to reproduce fertile offspring with its ancestor. However, no significant changes take place, especially on par to the vast differences between an ape and human

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:41   

I'll be back

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:48   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again.

No. Tardbucket.
 

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again

No. Tardbucket.


Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts


Oh? Then explain why we are here and they are not, Tardbucket. You might want to think about the term "robust" and what it does and does not mean, and how that relates to the environment at any given place and time.

On second thought, you should just put a period after "think" in that last sentence. Tardbucket.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
afarensis



Posts: 1002
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:49   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak

jeannot is correct on that score, and certainly the concept of an "explosion" - which is a poorly defined concept at best - doesn't have a lot of use in the field of paleoanthropology (except in terms of the "creative explosion" which was current back in the 1960's but now is little used by paleoanthropologists).

By the way that picture that you claim models earth's processes is horribly inaccurate and leaves out quite a bit. You might try something like this:



Which, at least, is much more accurate.

--------------
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.

   
afarensis



Posts: 1002
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,13:59   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:38)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

In some instances after selong separations or bottle necks like with the donkey, a critter will experience deletions due to inbreeding and will no longer retain a good ability to reproduce fertile offspring with its ancestor. However, no significant changes take place, especially on par to the vast differences between an ape and human

Actually, the differences between apes and humans are not that vast...

--------------
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.

   
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,14:18   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

You know, the internet is a great tool. You can search for "origin of life" and get plenty of detailed answers. You can also find lots of explanation on natural selection and evolutionary theory.
So why don't you educate yourself and come back to us when you have more specific questions?

OTOH, since you are apparently the only one to know about phenotype selection by the endocrine system, we'd love to hear the theory from an authority.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,14:20   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:16)
To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again.  
but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

sigh... OK, I'll give you this one... there is a Uniformitarianism in terms of natural philosophy and one in geology.  

Quote
earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again


Because you obviously don't have a clue, the reason that the Earth's rotation is slowing is this big ass object that hangs over our heads all the time... you may have heard of it... the moon?  It's gravitationally coupled to the Earth.  It imparts some of it's motion on the Earth and the Earth imparts some of its motion on the moon.  Since the Earth is much more massive than the moon, the Earth slows only slightly, while the moon speeds up slightly more.  Because of some fundamental laws of motion, when the moon increases in velocity, it recedes from us ever so slightly.  [Note that this is a very basic explanation and should not be argued against.  The math can be found here, as well as evidence for all of the above.  Only arguments from that material will be accepted.]

Also note that this concept has been known since [URL=E Halley (1695), "Some Account of the Ancient State of the City of Palmyra, with Short Remarks upon the Inscriptions Found there", Phil. Trans., vol.19 (1695-1697), pages 160-175; esp. at pages 174-175.]1695.[/URL]  The correctly understood answer to the question of why this happens was established in the 1860s.

Given that, I can understand someone who argues this kind of point may not have ever heard of it.  Of course, taking 3 seconds to look up Wikipedia (while not an authoritative source, I generally consider it useful enough for these discussions) and then following the links in the 'references' section for a more complete understanding.

Here are some references for you
F.R. Stephenson, L.V. Morrison (1995): "Long-term fluctuations in the Earth's rotation: 700 BC to AD 1990". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, pp.165–202. doi: 10.1098/rsta.1995.0028
Jean O. Dickey (1995): "Earth Rotation Variations from Hours to Centuries". In: I. Appenzeller (ed.): Highlights of Astronomy. Vol. 10 pp.17..44.

Now that that is out of the way.

Quote
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts


Assertion.  Cite evidence.

Define robust in terms of early man.
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time

as well as the rest of the work you have
define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,14:44   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

Tell you what... why don't you tell us what evidence you would find convincing.

You see, I could explain it... again, but why should I bother?  You won't be convinced.  And it's not like stuff like this doesn't exist already.

For example:
Here's the abstracts to 214 papers presented in 2009 all regarding abiogenisis.  

BTW: I'm not a chemist, you can quit lying now.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........164.pdf
Here are some blog posts you can read... oh, this blog (mine) is also going through, chapter by chapter, of "The Emergence of Life" by Luisi.  If you are interested in transitional fossils, you might find my chapter by chapter review of "Your Inner Fish" enlightening.

You see, people like you really are intellectual cowards.  You are scared to look up things that may interfere with your belief system.  

For example, the reasoning behind the slowing of the Earth's rotation has been known for almost 150 years, yet you don't know what it is.  You don't know how we know this, you haven't read any of the research, the math, the history of discovery, the evidence or even that it is a known process.

Likewise for the basic evidence you claim we won't tell you about.  There's a reason for that.  We don't have to.  The basics of evolutionary theory have been known since before Darwin.  The principles of change over time, mutation, natural selection, the genetic integration with modern evolutionary history, population dynamics, principles of speciation are not new concepts.  The most recent of these has been known for over 70 years.  

At this point, we're working on details, you're still wondering what's going on.

In the exact same way that civil engineers don't show their work when they talk about gravity in structure design, or electrical engineers don't recreate the derivation of the charge of an electron in every paper... the facts that you are questioning are so confirmed that they are taught in middle school to most kids.  (Of course, in the US, because of religion, our science education is below substandard... as evidenced here.)

It is not questioned that natural selection and evolutionary principles work.  Because, they simply do work.  In fields from anthropology to aerospace engineering, factory production schedules to financial interactions, evolutionary principles produce results.

You can cry and bitch and moan all you want, you cannot overcome that simple fact.

If you claim that it was all designed, then you have fallen into a simple trap.  If everything is designed, then the designer is the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology for no other designer is needed.

Now, for your edification.  Here's all the stuff that I have previous written on these topics.  The fact that they exist and were taken from other sources just shows you have failed in your due diligence to research these topics.  




BTW... you have a lot of questions to answer.  Feel free to get started at any time.Microevolution - what is it really

Selection or Design

Speciation

Evidence for Macroevolution

What is Macroevolution

Natural Selection

And when you are done with those you might take a look at What is Intelligent Design

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,15:45   

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,13:49)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak

jeannot is correct on that score, and certainly the concept of an "explosion" - which is a poorly defined concept at best - doesn't have a lot of use in the field of paleoanthropology (except in terms of the "creative explosion" which was current back in the 1960's but now is little used by paleoanthropologists).

By the way that picture that you claim models earth's processes is horribly inaccurate and leaves out quite a bit. You might try something like this:



Which, at least, is much more accurate.

Though much more limited in scope than my image that is a very nice example of order from disorder but my argument with Jeannot had to do with critter diversity. Now be aware that some seem to insist that I am simply referring  population explosions that isnt the case either.

Googling the geological eras + the key word "explosion" will bring up a plethora of info on this interesting paleobiology.

Oh and please see my arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions via the big bang explosion

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,15:46   

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,13:59)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:38)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

In some instances after selong separations or bottle necks like with the donkey, a critter will experience deletions due to inbreeding and will no longer retain a good ability to reproduce fertile offspring with its ancestor. However, no significant changes take place, especially on par to the vast differences between an ape and human

Actually, the differences between apes and humans are not that vast...

Only superficially in some areas

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,15:56   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,14:20)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:16)
To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again.  
but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

sigh... OK, I'll give you this one... there is a Uniformitarianism in terms of natural philosophy and one in geology.  

Quote
earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again


Because you obviously don't have a clue, the reason that the Earth's rotation is slowing is this big ass object that hangs over our heads all the time... you may have heard of it... the moon?  It's gravitationally coupled to the Earth.  It imparts some of it's motion on the Earth and the Earth imparts some of its motion on the moon.  Since the Earth is much more massive than the moon, the Earth slows only slightly, while the moon speeds up slightly more.  Because of some fundamental laws of motion, when the moon increases in velocity, it recedes from us ever so slightly.  [Note that this is a very basic explanation and should not be argued against.  The math can be found here, as well as evidence for all of the above.  Only arguments from that material will be accepted.]

Also note that this concept has been known since [URL=E Halley (1695), "Some Account of the Ancient State of the City of Palmyra, with Short Remarks upon the Inscriptions Found there", Phil. Trans., vol.19 (1695-1697), pages 160-175; esp. at pages 174-175.]1695.[/URL]  The correctly understood answer to the question of why this happens was established in the 1860s.

Given that, I can understand someone who argues this kind of point may not have ever heard of it.  Of course, taking 3 seconds to look up Wikipedia (while not an authoritative source, I generally consider it useful enough for these discussions) and then following the links in the 'references' section for a more complete understanding.

Here are some references for you
F.R. Stephenson, L.V. Morrison (1995): "Long-term fluctuations in the Earth's rotation: 700 BC to AD 1990". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, pp.165–202. doi: 10.1098/rsta.1995.0028
Jean O. Dickey (1995): "Earth Rotation Variations from Hours to Centuries". In: I. Appenzeller (ed.): Highlights of Astronomy. Vol. 10 pp.17..44.

Now that that is out of the way.

Quote
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts


Assertion.  Cite evidence.

Define robust in terms of early man.
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time

as well as the rest of the work you have
define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.

Thus, you admit there is no uniformitarianism

I made it clear that I made a typographical error and humans are becoming less robust with time but I guess y'all need your straws

Plus, you insist that I go to wiki for definitions yet you cant even bother with looking up things like endocrine system, nucleosynthesis, human robustness, ect ect..

I never seen so many double standards from one cite in my life

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,16:10   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,16:46)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,13:59)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:38)
 
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,04:31)
Your 'explanation' of sickle-cell anemia and enzyme-eating bacteria is weak just like your analogy.

In some instances after selong separations or bottle necks like with the donkey, a critter will experience deletions due to inbreeding and will no longer retain a good ability to reproduce fertile offspring with its ancestor. However, no significant changes take place, especially on par to the vast differences between an ape and human

Actually, the differences between apes and humans are not that vast...

Only superficially in some areas

Google "scurvy", Tardbucket.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,16:11   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
[quote=OgreMkV,Oct. 23 2011,13:11]
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)


Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

Speaking of double standards, y'all still havnt answered my question above and I guess would rather focus on eunuchs, hairless dogs, and wiki definitions rather than comparing proven Endocrine system adaptation with your natural mutation selection

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,16:16   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,16:10)
Google "scurvy", Tardbucket.

Google Canine Scurvy

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,16:18   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

I am sure you have studied up on that, a great deal.

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

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

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

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

  
afarensis



Posts: 1002
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,16:19   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,15:45)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,13:49)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:49)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Oct. 23 2011,12:42)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:32)
Actually "Pleistocene explosion" gets 87 hits at google and most of them have to do with explosions of diversity

Would you link to a result here?
Google isn't finding anything related to diversity (only genetic diversity maybe) with that search query.

Genetic diversity "maybe"?

Seems to be a Holocene explosion of denial going on as we speak

jeannot is correct on that score, and certainly the concept of an "explosion" - which is a poorly defined concept at best - doesn't have a lot of use in the field of paleoanthropology (except in terms of the "creative explosion" which was current back in the 1960's but now is little used by paleoanthropologists).

By the way that picture that you claim models earth's processes is horribly inaccurate and leaves out quite a bit. You might try something like this:



Which, at least, is much more accurate.

Though much more limited in scope than my image that is a very nice example of order from disorder but my argument with Jeannot had to do with critter diversity. Now be aware that some seem to insist that I am simply referring  population explosions that isnt the case either.

Googling the geological eras + the key word "explosion" will bring up a plethora of info on this interesting paleobiology.

Oh and please see my arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions via the big bang explosion

I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .But I accept your challange! Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...

--------------
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.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,16:21   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:11)
[quote=forastero,Oct. 23 2011,13:28]
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,13:11)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)


Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

Speaking of double standards, y'all still havnt answered my question above and I guess would rather focus on eunuchs, hairless dogs, and wiki definitions rather than comparing proven Endocrine system adaptation with your natural mutation selection

i want you to focus on hairless eunuchs.  some more.  tell me, are hairless eunuchs now less robust than they were in fossil men?

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

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

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

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,16:26   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:16)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,16:10)
Google "scurvy", Tardbucket.

Google Canine Scurvy

What's next? "Marsupial wolves are just like placental wolves"?

Tardbucket.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
afarensis



Posts: 1002
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,16:27   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,16:11)
[quote=forastero,Oct. 23 2011,13:28]
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,13:11)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)


Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

Speaking of double standards, y'all still havnt answered my question above and I guess would rather focus on eunuchs, hairless dogs, and wiki definitions rather than comparing proven Endocrine system adaptation with your natural mutation selection

The only scientist I know of who gave a role in evolution to the endocrine system is Carleton Coon, and his views on the subject are more than a little bit racist. Also, Schwartz's work on heat shock proteins. So do, please, elaborate for us.

--------------
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.

   
afarensis



Posts: 1002
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,16:29   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,16:26)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:16)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,16:10)
Google "scurvy", Tardbucket.

Google Canine Scurvy

What's next? "Marsupial wolves are just like placental wolves"?

Tardbucket.

Oh, pretty please, I loved that Byers thread! Brought a tear to my eye when it ended :(

--------------
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.

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,16:31   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 22 2011,09:07)
   
Quote


   Excellent.  So some things are designed and some things are not.

Please provide an example and cite the evidence that you used to draw this conclusion.

Note that "It is complex." and "It looks designed." are not evidence.  They are cop-outs.

I can provide dozens of examples of insanely complex structures and systems that were not designed.  I can also provide systems and structures that look as if they were designed, but they were not designed.

If you make the claim that they really are designed, then you are making the claim that everything was designed.




There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles
[/quote]

OK, you have got to be a Poe.

Assertion, evidence please.

BTW: 'poo' as you so eloquently describe it, is material that is indigestible by whatever organism is ejecting it.  Interestingly, many things are indigestible, because the organism has lost the ability to digest that material due to mutation.  Oops.

   [quote][/quote]

Ok I'll play your game

Poo is important for many food chains and cycles. In fact, I used to use guano and worm poo by the tons in some very elaborate gardens.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,16:33   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 23 2011,11:58)
deny what, you credulous git?  that the cambrian explosion wasn't really an explosion?

i realize you are probably trying to sound stupid here as part of your shtick but i think you are overselling it a tad.  try backing off, mentioning hitler, more perhaps something about moral relativism, less about actual facts.  the dance will last longer.  just a thought luv

Then try to prove that it wasnt an explosion of benthic diversity

what, is "explosion of diversity" somehow supposed to make more sense than "cambrian explosion"

psst forastero we know fundie idiots have trouble with the difference between literal and figurative but i'll give you a hint.  a blow job doesn't mean taping an M-90 to your balls

i've said it before, i'll say it again, more hitler means jesus died for our sins stuff

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

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

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

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

  
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,16:42   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:31)
Ok I'll play your game

Poo is important for many food chains and cycles. In fact, I used to use guano and worm poo by the tons in some very elaborate gardens.

Are you old enough to be posting here?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
afarensis



Posts: 1002
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,16:44   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,16:18)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

I am sure you have studied up on that, a great deal.

Depends on how one defines robust. I once made the mistake of agreeing with a creationist that modern humans are less robust than their evolutionary predecessors. I thought he was using the term in its anthropological sense, which is true. He, however, had a slightly different meaning for the word robust. More in line with this:



However, the claim that many animals are less robust (in the scientific sense of the term) is false.

--------------
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.

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,16:55   

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:19)
I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .But I accept your challange! Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...

Are you sure you are familiar with this paleobiology because to the discerning mind, Jeannot's link is about population explosions ? http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....df]http

Ha ha... I see that you decided to argue about the one geologic period that I hadnt mentioned in my quote below

Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,16:57   

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:29)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,16:26)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:16)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,16:10)
Google "scurvy", Tardbucket.

Google Canine Scurvy

What's next? "Marsupial wolves are just like placental wolves"?

Tardbucket.

Oh, pretty please, I loved that Byers thread! Brought a tear to my eye when it ended :(

A fix for your jones.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:03   

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:27)
[quote=forastero,Oct. 23 2011,16:11]
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:28)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,13:11)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,12:56)


Again, if you are willing, I will teach you.  I figure Big Bang cosmology would take about 2 months, genetics 3-4 weeks,  evolution 3-4 months.  This would, of course, depend on your diligence in the subjects.

So if mutations didnt cause an evolution from one order to new orders then what do Y'ALL think did? Oh and since you are chemist, please also inform me if and how primordial soup mutated into life

Dont worry I have known how the endocrine system selects phenotypes for years and will teach you but first I want you to tell me your definition of natural selection and how it works with mutations.

Speaking of double standards, y'all still havnt answered my question above and I guess would rather focus on eunuchs, hairless dogs, and wiki definitions rather than comparing proven Endocrine system adaptation with your natural mutation selection

The only scientist I know of who gave a role in evolution to the endocrine system is Carleton Coon, and his views on the subject are more than a little bit racist. Also, Schwartz's work on heat shock proteins. So do, please, elaborate for us.

Wrong again. Carlton Coon and his ilk hated the thought of purposeful adaptation and ID. He was a neodarwinist who like the Darwinist believed in the preservation of favored races via exploitation, eugenics, genocide, war, etc etc ...

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:06   

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:44)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 23 2011,16:18)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

I am sure you have studied up on that, a great deal.

Depends on how one defines robust. I once made the mistake of agreeing with a creationist that modern humans are less robust than their evolutionary predecessors. I thought he was using the term in its anthropological sense, which is true. He, however, had a slightly different meaning for the word robust. More in line with this:



However, the claim that many animals are less robust (in the scientific sense of the term) is false.

Wrong again. Pick most any critter I i'll show you a more robust ancestor

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:12   

except maybe the blue whale but one bigger will pop up sooner or later

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:15   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,16:55)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:19)
I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .But I accept your challange! Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...

Are you sure you are familiar with this paleobiology because to the discerning mind, Jeannot's link is about population explosions ? [URL=http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers/pubs/Rogers-E-49-608.pdf]http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf]http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....df]

Ha ha... I see that you decided to argue about the one geologic period that I hadnt mentioned in my quote below

 
Quote
It wasnt just Cambrian explosions, but Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions

Oops fixed that link

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:18   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:15)

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:19)
I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .But I accept your challange! Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...

Are you sure you are familiar with this paleobiology because to the discerning mind, Jeannot's link is about population explosion? http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf

  
afarensis



Posts: 1002
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:19   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:06)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:44)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Oct. 23 2011,16:18)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,14:16)
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

I am sure you have studied up on that, a great deal.

Depends on how one defines robust. I once made the mistake of agreeing with a creationist that modern humans are less robust than their evolutionary predecessors. I thought he was using the term in its anthropological sense, which is true. He, however, had a slightly different meaning for the word robust. More in line with this:



However, the claim that many animals are less robust (in the scientific sense of the term) is false.

Wrong again. Pick most any critter I i'll show you a more robust ancestor

Okay, define robust.

--------------
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.

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:20   

Hmm..you guys sure are taking a long time to find a robust critter

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:22   

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:19)
Okay, define robust.

ha ha thats funny

Mass, density, etc etc..

  
afarensis



Posts: 1002
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:23   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:18)
[quote=forastero,Oct. 23 2011,17:15][/quote]
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:19)
I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .But I accept your challange! Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...

Are you sure you are familiar with this paleobiology because to the discerning mind, Jeannot's link is about population explosion? http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf

Exactly what I said, jeanot was talking about population demographics, you were not. As I said in the context of Pleistocene anthropology explosion is always used in the context of populations. I did google all the other periods but, found nothing that supports your point.

--------------
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.

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:24   

I'll let you work on that for a while but dont worry I'll be back

Oh and forget to figure out how to define natural mutation seltion

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:25   

I mean dont forget .....

  
afarensis



Posts: 1002
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:27   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:22)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:19)
Okay, define robust.

ha ha thats funny

Mass, density, etc etc..

So it is the creationist meaning of robust that your are referring to and not the scientific meaning then? Because in paleontology and paleoanthropology robust is not a measure of size.

--------------
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.

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:34   

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:44)
Depends on how one defines robust. I once made the mistake of agreeing with a creationist that modern humans are less robust than their evolutionary predecessors. I thought he was using the term in its anthropological sense, which is true. He, however, had a slightly different meaning for the word robust. More in line with this:


Nice call, afarensis.

 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,18:12)
except maybe the blue whale but one bigger will pop up sooner or later


Tardbucket.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:34   

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:23)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:18)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:15)

 
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,16:19)
I am quite familiar with the paleontological and paleobiological literature and the only time the word explosion is ever used is in the context of the Cambrian. .But I accept your challange! Oh, snaps, nothing but the Cambrian explosion came up when I googled geological eras and explosions. Nothing came up for "Pliocene explosions" other than stuff about earthquakes and volcanoes. Ditto for Miocene.

jeanot was not saying that you were using "explosion" in the context of populations, rather, jeanot was pointing out that in the context of Pleistocene anthropology the word explosion is used exclusively in the literature to refer to demographic phenomena.

I would see your arguments on geo-cosmological orderly interactions except you haven't made any. You have made a few assertions, sans any evidence to back those assertions up, and posted a rather inaccurate picture of the earth's structure...

Are you sure you are familiar with this paleobiology because to the discerning mind, Jeannot's link is about population explosion? http://www.anthro.utah.edu/~rogers....608.pdf

Exactly what I said, jeanot was talking about population demographics, you were not. As I said in the context of Pleistocene anthropology explosion is always used in the context of populations. I did google all the other periods but, found nothing that supports your point.

Uh,,thats not my link. Its the only link that Jeannot "claimed" to be able to find after he googled "pleistocene explosion"

Its denial at its best but thanks guys for presenting your intellectual integrity to the cyber world

btw, Primitive ego-defenses include, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. Also, devaluation and projective identification are seen as borderline defenses. Projection is attributing your own repressed thoughts to someone else. The conceptualization of splitting defines an ego that allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. Splitting is a defense mechanism present in all narcissists .

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:37   

This seems an appropriate link RE: Tardbucket.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:39   

As does this.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:41   

Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:27)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:22)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:19)
Okay, define robust.

ha ha thats funny

Mass, density, etc etc..

So it is the creationist meaning of robust that your are referring to and not the scientific meaning then? Because in paleontology and paleoanthropology robust is not a measure of size.

thats so funny its sad

So not to look like the cop out that it is, why dont you provide the "anthropological" definition of robustness

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:43   

do we really have a live one? after all this time? really? Can I pet it? If I pet it, it won't die will it? That always happens. That always happens and you always say it's not my fault, but it is. it is.

Can i pet it? cAn i?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
forastero



Posts: 458
Joined: Oct. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:45   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,17:37)
This seems an appropriate link RE: Tardbucket.

Btw, only the eugenics or supremacist minded would constantly and publicly project the word tard

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:46   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,18:45)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,17:37)
This seems an appropriate link RE: Tardbucket.

Btw, only the eugenics or supremacist minded would constantly and publicly project the word tard

Cure your ignorance, Tardbucket.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:50   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,15:56)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,14:20)
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,13:16)
To say that the earth follows uniformitarianism but cosmological forces do not is denying that cosmological processes effect the earth, Which is pseudoscience again.  
but then you also conform to a belief that the earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again

If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts

sigh... OK, I'll give you this one... there is a Uniformitarianism in terms of natural philosophy and one in geology.  

 
Quote
earth's non uniform spin obeys uniformitarianism without explaining how, again


Because you obviously don't have a clue, the reason that the Earth's rotation is slowing is this big ass object that hangs over our heads all the time... you may have heard of it... the moon?  It's gravitationally coupled to the Earth.  It imparts some of it's motion on the Earth and the Earth imparts some of its motion on the moon.  Since the Earth is much more massive than the moon, the Earth slows only slightly, while the moon speeds up slightly more.  Because of some fundamental laws of motion, when the moon increases in velocity, it recedes from us ever so slightly.  [Note that this is a very basic explanation and should not be argued against.  The math can be found here, as well as evidence for all of the above.  Only arguments from that material will be accepted.]

Also note that this concept has been known since [URL=E Halley (1695), "Some Account of the Ancient State of the City of Palmyra, with Short Remarks upon the Inscriptions Found there", Phil. Trans., vol.19 (1695-1697), pages 160-175; esp. at pages 174-175.]1695.[/URL]  The correctly understood answer to the question of why this happens was established in the 1860s.

Given that, I can understand someone who argues this kind of point may not have ever heard of it.  Of course, taking 3 seconds to look up Wikipedia (while not an authoritative source, I generally consider it useful enough for these discussions) and then following the links in the 'references' section for a more complete understanding.

Here are some references for you
F.R. Stephenson, L.V. Morrison (1995): "Long-term fluctuations in the Earth's rotation: 700 BC to AD 1990". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London Series A, pp.165–202. doi: 10.1098/rsta.1995.0028
Jean O. Dickey (1995): "Earth Rotation Variations from Hours to Centuries". In: I. Appenzeller (ed.): Highlights of Astronomy. Vol. 10 pp.17..44.

Now that that is out of the way.

 
Quote
If you were to study fossil man, you would know that man is much less robust than now as are so many other beasts


Assertion.  Cite evidence.

Define robust in terms of early man.
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time

as well as the rest of the work you have
define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.

Thus, you admit there is no uniformitarianism

I made it clear that I made a typographical error and humans are becoming less robust with time but I guess y'all need your straws

Plus, you insist that I go to wiki for definitions yet you cant even bother with looking up things like endocrine system, nucleosynthesis, human robustness, ect ect..

I never seen so many double standards from one cite in my life

No... can you read?

It admitted that uniformatarianism is a concept that is used in geology AND natural philosophy.  As such, it is not completely spelled out in cosmology, other than its role in natural philosophy.

However, what you fail to grasp, is that the two concepts are not the same.  You have also not objected to any of the examples I provided.

I sent you the Wikipedia links, because they are pretty good for your level of understanding, which is seriously lacking.  

You still haven't touched on anything on my list, except the definition of robust.
as well as the rest of the work you have
define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.
[strike]Define robust in terms of early man.[/strike]
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time

Oh, and you wanted an example where the modern form is more robust that the primitive form

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....siensis

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,17:51   

Oh yeah,

what is your alternative explanation?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,18:01   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 23 2011,17:43)
do we really have a live one? after all this time? really? Can I pet it? If I pet it, it won't die will it? That always happens. That always happens and you always say it's not my fault, but it is. it is.

Can i pet it? cAn i?

Evidently forastero is so stupid he thinks saying the most words is winning the debate.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,18:18   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 23 2011,19:01)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 23 2011,17:43)
do we really have a live one? after all this time? really? Can I pet it? If I pet it, it won't die will it? That always happens. That always happens and you always say it's not my fault, but it is. it is.

Can i pet it? cAn i?

Evidently forastero is so stupid he thinks saying the most words is winning the debate.

in that he is not singular

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

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

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

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,18:24   

You know what I don't get...

Here he is and he obviously has some ideas, yet he won't actually talk about his ideas.

Here's his chance to get some serious feedback on these ideas of his, there are a number of Ph.D.s and gifted non-doctorates here who can review, point out mistakes, suggest alternative resources, etc...

And he's trying to argue that the Big Bang started by nuclear fusion.  

Is it any wonder these types are never taken seriously in the real scientific culture?

For example, his statement that 'the endocrine system selects the phenotype'.  We've asked dozens of times for an explanation.  A real scientist would be all over himself talking about it.  We probably couldn't get him to shut up about it, but not the creationist, he refuses to even link to articles to support it.

What's freaking hilarious is that I, after 5 seconds on google and about 20 minutes of reading, probably know more about it than our friend here.

For example, the research here of embryologic development in birds.http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/363/1497/1635.full

I'll point out that the endocrine system doesn't SELECT the phenotype, but may regulate the EXPRESSION of the phenotype.  There is a huge difference, not that I expect forastero to understand that.

For example, in humans, the sex of the offspring is directly related to the presence of the Y chromosome.  Allowing exceptions for chromosomal mutations, there is no environmental change that can change the sex of the offspring once conception happens.  Of course, this is not true for many reptile species, where the sex of the offspring is dependent on the temperature of the egg during development.

I'm very curious, forastero, how you deal with similar developmental issues in organisms that do not have endocrine systems... since they are the great majority of live on the planet.

Of course, what's really funny is in these various papers, the assumption is that species evolve and through a variety of mechanisms.  So, forastero, does evolution happen?  If it happens at all, then simple time will ensure the development of species and greater divisions.  Your only solution is to deny that evolution happens at all... in which case, this entire argument is a moot point.

BTW: Here's an interesting diagram and information, that may seem to support forastero at first glance, but it still doesn't actually support his claim that the endocrine system selects the phenotype.  http://jme.endocrinology-journals.org/content/46/1/R11/F1.expansion.html

Influence expression, sure.  Influence phenotype, no, can't happen.  And that's why, forastero, that I keep wanting you to define phenotype.  Because once you do, then you will see that the endocrine system CANNOT SELECT THE PHENOTYPE.

Hint: When is the phenotype of an organism expressed?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
SoonerintheBluegrass



Posts: 39
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,18:43   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:45)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Oct. 23 2011,17:37)
This seems an appropriate link RE: Tardbucket.

Btw, only the eugenics or supremacist minded would constantly and publicly project the word tard

Tard, as refers to you and your ilk, is actually an acronym:

The
Argument
Regarding
Design

Is it a bit crude?  Yes.  Is it intended as a perjorative?  Yes.  Is it intended to associate you with the (involuntarily) mentally handicapped, or to insult the mentally handicapped?  No.  

So please do climb down off your cross.

--------------
"And heaven will smell like the airport
But I may not get there to prove it
So let's not waste our time thinking how that ain't fair."

Neko Case

  
paragwinn



Posts: 376
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,19:02   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,10:52)
Hmm speaking of explosions, there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

Are these the explosions you are thinking of?
Great Ordovician Biodiversification Event
Silurian Period
Life of the Devonian
Climate and the Carboniferous Period

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. -forastero

  
paragwinn



Posts: 376
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,19:15   

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,17:02)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,10:52)
Hmm speaking of explosions, there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

or these?
Fossil insects and associated plants from the Late Triassic Molteno Formation of South Africa
SHARKS HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR MORE THAN 450 MILLION YEARS
Paleoenvironments of the Jurassic and Cretaceous Oceans: Selected Highlights
The Jurassic: The Mammal Explosion - History and Analysis of the Discovery Today Challenging the Conventional View of Our Ancestors from the Early Jurassic Onward
Dinosaurs and the Cretaceous Terrestrial Revolution

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. -forastero

  
paragwinn



Posts: 376
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,19:41   

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 23 2011,17:15)
 
Quote (forastero @ Oct. 22 2011,10:52)
Hmm speaking of explosions, there are also all the explosions of life such as the Cambrian explosion, Ordovician explosions, Silurian explosion, Devonian explosions, carboniferous explosions, Triassic explosion, Jurassic explosion, Cretaceous explosion, Paleocene explosion, Eocene explosion, Oligocene  explosion, Miocene explosion,  Pleistocene explosions.

or any of these?
THE PALEOCENE EPOCH
Evidence for a Paleocene Evolutionary Radiation
Ancient dolphins – the fossil record
Equidae
The Pleistocene and the Origins of Human Culture

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. -forastero

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2011,23:20   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,15:22)
Quote (afarensis @ Oct. 23 2011,17:19)
Okay, define robust.

ha ha thats funny

Mass, density, etc etc..

Hahaha, oh wow.

The concept of island dwarfism disagrees

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,00:32   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:20)
Hmm..you guys sure are taking a long time to find a robust critter

the horse?

the blue whale?
EDIT: given the billion of species that existed I'm pretty sure you can find an ancestor that was more robust than a extant descendent... or weaker. Depends on which ancestor you pick.

What's your point?

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,00:44   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,17:34)
Uh,,thats not my link. Its the only link that Jeannot "claimed" to be able to find after he googled "pleistocene explosion"

Its denial at its best but thanks guys for presenting your intellectual integrity to the cyber world

btw, Primitive ego-defenses include, projection, denial, dissociation or splitting and they are called borderline defense mechanisms. Also, devaluation and projective identification are seen as borderline defenses. Projection is attributing your own repressed thoughts to someone else. The conceptualization of splitting defines an ego that allows reality to be both acknowledged and denied. Splitting is a defense mechanism present in all narcissists .

"Primitive ego-defenses include, projection, denial, "
Projecting much?
You mentioned some "pleistocene explosions", but you didn't have clue. It's ok, you can admit it. Everyone makes mistake.  (If talking out of one's a$$ is a mistake.)
Are you blaming us for your inability to post a web link? Are you being repressed by our denial?

You'd better reply to that with your examples of "pleistocene radiations", if you want to earn some respect here. But I guess the martyr position is more comfortable.

  
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,02:23   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 23 2011,17:50)
 ... 

You still haven't touched on anything on my list, except the definition of robust.
as well as the rest of the work you have
define homozygous
define heterozygous
describe the Cambrian explosion
define symmetry breaking (as relates to the begining of the universe)
define hyper-inflation
describe the endocrine notion of phenotype selection
define phenotype (include the other common -type and define that as well)
explain why you insist that evolution requires something that no scientist requires (fruit flies to dogs)
explain why you insist that evolution explain a process which cannot be affected by evolution (i.e. Origins of Life)
define species
show that mutation always results in the loss of genetic information (show the math and define information while you are at it)
evidence that the four fundamental forces of our universe change over time
Evidence that you understand when nucleosynthesis occurs with respect to the early universe.
Evidence that the magnetic field is weakening
Evidence that fruits and vegetables of today have lost large percentages of their mineral content over the last 50 years
Evidence that bones are becoming less dense.
[strike]Define robust in terms of early man.[/strike]
Show evidence that fossil man (define and give examples of) are less robust than modern man
Show evidence of any other species that is less robust now than the same species in pre-historical time

Oh, and you wanted an example where the modern form is more robust that the primitive form

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......siensis

Don't distract him!  I think I speak for everyone here (well, ok, maybe just 'Ras) when I want to hear more about his theory that coprophagy proves design.
   
Quote
There are designs and derivatives of design but even the derivatives are implemented into the grand scheme of things. Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5375
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,03:26   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 21 2011,23:32)
Poopoo for instance is a derivative but one that both abides by the laws of the designer and enhances his cycles



The Designer's enhanced cycle runs on poo.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
Amadan



Posts: 1240
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,06:10   

Quote (George @ Oct. 24 2011,08:23)
Don't distract him!  I think I speak for everyone here (well, ok, maybe just 'Ras) when I want to hear more about his theory that coprophagy proves design.

Is this something to do with 'Mud to Mozart'?

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,06:29   

from shit to silverstein!

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

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

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,06:30   

more about slime to proust, hitler therefore baby jesus, please

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

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

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

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,06:40   

Can anyone say "Gish Gallop"?

I wonder if the new Wunderkind of T.A.R.D. can stick to one single claim. My prediction: heliotrope!

Louis

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1748
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,06:56   

I wouldn't be surprised if we got an Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) denialist on our hands, therefore this news of today as an example of how science actually works:

Berkeley Earth Project
   
Quote
(Translated from Swedish by Quack):
Behind the results we find among others one of the 2011 Nobel laureates in physics, Saul Perlmutter, and it has been led by the American physicist Richard Muller. He has been an outspoken critic of parts of the methods of climate research and wanted to check the conclusions of the British researchers that was alleged to have been dressing their figures in the so-called Climategate, later they’ve been freed by independent researchers.
Money for the new research was put up, among others by American oil billionaires that also support climate skeptical lobbyist groups. And the results show an increase of nearly 1°C  average land temperature the past 100 years.
The new curve also looks almost exactly like the three earlier produced by different research groups in the USA and Great Britain.


--------------
YEC creationists denigrate science without an inkling of what their lives would be without it. YEC creationism is an enrageous, abominable insult to the the human intellect.
                                                         Me.

  
paragwinn



Posts: 376
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,07:00   

from ordure to Orff

from feces to Ninety-Five Theses

from BM to BMW

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
The geological maps that realist use to make money are all surface maps. -forastero

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,07:00   

References to Of Mice and Men and factual information aside, I think our new friend didn't expect the Spanish inquisition!

Ok, I'll admit this was posted for comedic value and doesn't add anything to the discussion, but when I left yesterday the thread was 3 pages, and now it's 6.


I'm a slow reader...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3268
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,07:21   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Oct. 24 2011,07:00)
References to Of Mice and Men and factual information aside, I think our new friend didn't expect the Spanish inquisition!

Ok, I'll admit this was posted for comedic value and doesn't add anything to the discussion, but when I left yesterday the thread was 3 pages, and now it's 6.


I'm a slow reader...

Dude, I left at four pages to go watch Tron: Legacy with the boy and came back to 6 pages.

I hope we didn't break him.  I mean, who are we expecting to actually support his statements>!>!>

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1691
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,07:36   

Quote
Dude, I left at four pages to go watch Tron: Legacy


I'm so, so terribly sorry. My thoughts are with you.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Gunthernacus



Posts: 232
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,09:23   

Quote (forastero @ Oct. 23 2011,18:12)
except maybe the blue whale but one bigger will pop up sooner or later

An ID prediction! </confetti>  Using this new robustness measure - ID is sure to replace current science.

 
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 24 2011,08:00)
from feces to Ninety-Five Theses

POTW!

--------------
Given that we are all descended from Adam and Eve...genetic defects as a result of intra-family marriage would not begin to crop up until after the first few dozen generations. - Dr. Hugh Ross

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,09:47   

Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 24 2011,07:00)
from ordure to Orff

from feces to Ninety-Five Theses

from BM to BMW

From poo to you by way of the loo.

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,10:22   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 24 2011,15:47)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 24 2011,07:00)
from ordure to Orff

from feces to Ninety-Five Theses

from BM to BMW

From poo to you by way of the loo.

Tracy Hamilton and Paragwinn both get my vote for POTW.

Tracy, you get the PO, Paragwinn you get the TW. No swapsies no squabbling.

Louis

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2206
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,12:04   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 24 2011,07:47)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 24 2011,07:00)
from ordure to Orff

from feces to Ninety-Five Theses

from BM to BMW

From poo to you by way of the loo.

From turd to tard.  And back again.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Henry J



Posts: 4013
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,12:15   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Oct. 24 2011,08:47)
Quote (paragwinn @ Oct. 24 2011,07:00)
from ordure to Orff

from feces to Ninety-Five Theses

from BM to BMW

From poo to you by way of the loo.

Is that the poo the whole poo and nothing but the poo?

  
JohnW



Posts: 2206
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,12:31   

- Gish Gallop.
- Spectacular arrogance.
- Spectacular ignorance.
- Refusal to accept being wrong about anything, even the most minor off-topic comment.

Combined with his/her shaky grasp of the English language, the conclusion's obvious: forastero is afdave's Portuguese cousin.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Amadan



Posts: 1240
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,12:37   

Falando do quem, has AFDave been seen anywhere recently?

He discovered an[other] exciting business opportunity when Febble et al painted him into the corner of a zircon crystal at TalkOrigins a few months ago.

It would be such as shame to lose the Internet's premier resource for countering creationism.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,13:32   

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 24 2011,18:31)
- Gish Gallop.
- Spectacular arrogance.
- Spectacular ignorance.
- Refusal to accept being wrong about anything, even the most minor off-topic comment.

Combined with his/her shaky grasp of the English language, the conclusion's obvious: forastero is afdave's Portuguese cousin.

Forastero is a combination of French and Spanish?

Louis

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

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,14:00   

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 24 2011,07:10)
Quote (George @ Oct. 24 2011,08:23)
Don't distract him!  I think I speak for everyone here (well, ok, maybe just 'Ras) when I want to hear more about his theory that coprophagy proves design.

Is this something to do with 'Mud to Mozart'?

I like "From Poo To You By Way of Teh Jew".

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

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,14:03   

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 24 2011,13:37)
Falando do quem, has AFDave been seen anywhere recently?

He discovered an[other] exciting business opportunity when Febble et al painted him into the corner of a zircon crystal at TalkOrigins a few months ago.

It would be such as shame to lose the Internet's premier resource for countering creationism.

I'd been wondering, myself.  Deadman and I wax nostalgic about him once in a while.  Lousy pillow talk but still amusing.

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

  
Ra-Úl



Posts: 93
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,14:05   

Quote (Louis @ Oct. 24 2011,13:32)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 24 2011,18:31)
- Gish Gallop.
- Spectacular arrogance.
- Spectacular ignorance.
- Refusal to accept being wrong about anything, even the most minor off-topic comment.

Combined with his/her shaky grasp of the English language, the conclusion's obvious: forastero is afdave's Portuguese cousin.

Forastero is a combination of French and Spanish?

Louis

'Forastero means 'stranger' or 'foreigner' in Spanish. From a Catalan word. I was trying to find a Portuguese cognate for a weak pun, but no luck. I like how Forastero use 'y'all' and other Americanisms. Foreigners find other foreigner's English very amusing.

--------------
Beauty is that which makes us desperate. - P Valery

  
Amadan



Posts: 1240
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,15:13   

Quote (Ra-Úl @ Oct. 24 2011,20:05)
'Forastero means 'stranger' or 'foreigner' in Spanish. From a Catalan word. I was trying to find a Portuguese cognate for a weak pun, but no luck. I like how Forastero use 'y'all' and other Americanisms. Foreigners find other foreigner's English very amusing.

Maybe 'Forastero' is just a misspelling of 'For Hysterics'?

Apropos nothing in particular, in Dublin, the English word for someone of a different nationality is pronounced fardn.

(Similarly, the local newspaper published during the afternoon is termed the Eden Heddle.)

Thank you for your attention during this short digression.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,15:21   

Quote (Ra-Úl @ Oct. 24 2011,20:05)
Quote (Louis @ Oct. 24 2011,13:32)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 24 2011,18:31)
- Gish Gallop.
- Spectacular arrogance.
- Spectacular ignorance.
- Refusal to accept being wrong about anything, even the most minor off-topic comment.

Combined with his/her shaky grasp of the English language, the conclusion's obvious: forastero is afdave's Portuguese cousin.

Forastero is a combination of French and Spanish?

Louis

'Forastero means 'stranger' or 'foreigner' in Spanish. From a Catalan word. I was trying to find a Portuguese cognate for a weak pun, but no luck. I like how Forastero use 'y'all' and other Americanisms. Foreigners find other foreigner's English very amusing.

I was referring to AFDave's much laughed at claim that Portuguese is a mixture of Spanish and French. So when JohnW asked (tongue in cheek I am guessing) if our new chew toy is AFDave's Portuguese cousin, well, it was an obvious in-joke.

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2011,15:23   

Quote (Wolfhound @ Oct. 24 2011,20:03)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 24 2011,13:37)
Falando do quem, has AFDave been seen anywhere recently?

He discovered an[other] exciting business opportunity when Febble et al painted him into the corner of a zircon crystal at TalkOrigins a few months ago.

It would be such as shame to lose the Internet's premier resource for countering creationism.

I'd been wondering, myself.  Deadman and I wax nostalgic about him once in a while.  Lousy pillow talk but still amusing.

THAT'S what gets you hot? Impressive.

"Oooooh baby, tell me how big the error is in YEC's claims about the age of the earth"

"Six orders of magnitude"

"<Something about your cock>"

"That'll do! Annnnnnnnnd relax!"

Louis

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

  
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006