RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (36) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: From "LUCA" thread, Paley's Ghost can back up his assertions< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,15:09   

Quote
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 26 2005,16: 01)
Comments?
None

Hmmmmm.........
Kirk finally shuts off M5 by pointing out that by killing humans it has violated its programming of saving men from dangerous activities such as space exploration. Since the penalty for murder is death, the M5 concludes that it must die, and shuts itself down.

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2005,17:18   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 26 2005,16<!--emo&:0)
    Comments?


Actually, I think I'm funnier than GOP.

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

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

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,04:24   

Quote
Actually, I think I'm funnier than GOP.


  Murphy, you're back! Hey, do you still have the barrel I lent you from our last encounter? You can keep the suspenders; after all, you'll probably need them next time.

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

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,08:43   

To get this discussion back on track, let me repeat an earlier question:
Quote
what makes some morphological characters assume greater importance than others? Not merely their tendency to fall into nested groupings. How circular would that be, after all....

 
Murphy was apparently too stunned to reply, and yammered on about how he doesn't have time to respond to the likes of me (as opposed to reading my posts and insulting me, one presumes). So can anyone? Oh wait, let me add:
 F=mv.

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

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,09:14   

Alright, I'll bite.

One could argue (and I'm not speaking for evolutionists here, they may have a better answer, I'm pretty ignorant in phylogeny) that using certain morphological characteristics they are able to construct nested groups.  The fact of the matter is that they are able to do so.  As far as I know, (I'd love to see some evidence to the contrary) they are not able to create a seperate non-sensical tree of life from other characteristics.  Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?

It is not obvious from a creationism standpoint that any such tree of life should exist at all.  I'm sure you have a convoluted argument that you're going to share with us now.

-Dan

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,09:53   

Quote
One could argue (and I'm not speaking for evolutionists here, they may have a better answer, I'm pretty ignorant in phylogeny) that using certain morphological characteristics they are able to construct nested groups.  The fact of the matter is that they are able to do so.

   Just to make sure I understand your argument, you are saying that any choice of characters is suitable, because only evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. So there is no a priori reason for the choice; any characters that form a tree will do?

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

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,10:44   

Once again I am no expert on this stuff.  I'm not going to ignorantly paint the wrong picture of evolution so you could point out that it's wrong.  But, it seems you are implying that there are some characteristics that are being ignored when making a tree.  As I said, "As far as I know, they are not able to create a seperate non-sensical tree of life from other characteristics."  So, let's hear your complaint, man.  Show me the evidence.  You have my attention.

-Dan

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,10:52   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 28 2005,13:43)
To get this discussion back on track, let me repeat an earlier question:
Quote
what makes some morphological characters assume greater importance than others? Not merely their tendency to fall into nested groupings. How circular would that be, after all....

 
Murphy was apparently too stunned to reply, and yammered on about how he doesn't have time to respond to the likes of me (as opposed to reading my posts and insulting me, one presumes). So can anyone? Oh wait, let me add:
 F=mv.

Actually, I was hardly too stunned to reply. I just realized that someone who subscribes to geocentrism is either joking, or a joke.

Which is it, Bill?

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

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 3999
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2005,14:49   

Re "any characters that form a tree will do?"

Eh? I thought the point was to construct it from as many sources of data as are available, so that the results can be cross checked against each other. (Keeping in mind that methods with more data are more reliable than those with less.)

Henry

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2005,09:03   

Quote
But, it seems you are implying that there are some characteristics that are being ignored when making a tree.  As I said, "As far as I know, they are not able to create a seperate non-sensical tree of life from other characteristics."  So, let's hear your complaint, man.  Show me the evidence.  You have my attention.

and
Quote
I thought the point was to construct it from as many sources of data as are available, so that the results can be cross checked against each other. (Keeping in mind that methods with more data are more reliable than those with less.)

  Wow, you guys are pretty slippery! Here are my points:

 The present system, although modified by Hennig, is still essentially Linnean. Now, ole Carl was definitely a creo, so any evolutionary modification should improve and objectify his schema. This was to be accomplished by applying the concept of common descent. With common descent, the evos presumed, they could use the fossil record and embryology to decipher the homologies that define the clades, and thereby produce a robust tree. But the poor embryos wouldn't cooperate:
Quote
Most traditional views of homology rely on two unwarranted premises: the pervasively hierarchical nature of biology, inclusive of the levels of genes, development, and morphology and the linear mapping of genes onto developmental schedules and of developmental schedules onto phenotypes. These premises are only occasionally verified.

 The author proceeds to point out incongruities during the development of the vertebrate alimentary canal as one example among many. Basically, embryology seems an unreliable way to test the homology of characters. As for the fossil record: well, let's just leave that weak sister alone for now. To summarize, there is no consistent way to test homologies.
 But can't we use common sense? Not really. Take mammals as an example. Mammals are defined as creatures that are:
 1) Endothermic
 2) Furry
 3) Possessors of a unique ear/jaw structure

  All of these characteristics are questionable. Birds and other critters share character 1), pterodactyls might share 2), and a recent    fossil revealed parallel "evolution" for 3), rendering that characteristic uninformative.
 To show you how labile these classifications can be, see here and compare to P.Z. Myer's simple phylogeny for winged insects.

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2005,10:33   

Bill,

Just a short reply for now (time to get back to work). You're completely missing the point (and I can only assume wilfully) about how phylogenetic trees are constructed. You keep trying to demonstrate how a particular line of evidence (e.g., homologies with a single protein, a particular morphological feature, etc.) cannot be relied upon to contruct a plausible phylogenetic tree.

So what? When you combine evidence from half a dozen or more independent lines of inquiry, and they all point towards the same phylogenetic tree, then you've got overwhelming evidence that that particular tree (out of an astronomical number of possible trees) is correct.

This isn't a difficult concept to grasp. Nevertheless, you are determined not to grasp it.

On the other hand, you're determined not to grasp the concept that the earth is not the center of the cosmos. A quick question for you: how far away is the closest star?

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

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 3999
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2005,10:38   

Re "how far away is the closest star?"

That was a question (er, answer?) on Jeopardy not long ago. I fell for it. :(

Henry

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2005,11:49   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2005,16:38)
Re "how far away is the closest star?"

That was a question (er, answer?) on Jeopardy not long ago. I fell for it. :(

Henry

Actually, it's not a trick question, i.e., I'm talking about the closest star that isn't the sun (although even the sun would imply some pretty high velocities). I just wonder how thoroughly Mr. Bill has explored the implications of his own belief system (assuming, of course, that he even believes in geocentrism -- I'm assuming he's pretending to, just to get our goats).

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

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 3999
Joined: Mar. 2005

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

I don't have any goats, so he'll have a hard time getting any from me. :)

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2005,07:29   

Quote
So what? When you combine evidence from half a dozen or more independent lines of inquiry, and they all point towards the same phylogenetic tree, then you've got overwhelming evidence that that particular tree (out of an astronomical number of possible trees) is correct.

 Apparently you're of the mind that if one can weave a rope from strands of overcooked noodles. I prefer to work with stronger materials, myself.
Quote
I'm talking about the closest star that isn't the sun (although even the sun would imply some pretty high velocities). I just wonder how thoroughly Mr. Bill has explored the implications of his own belief system

 But would the light from a star have to originate from the star itself?  There goes your parallax shift and relativity-calculated distances. Assuming, of course, they were ever valid to begin with. By the way, why are you so fascinated with my geocentrism?


Henry J wrote:

Quote
I don't have any goats, so he'll have a hard time getting any from me.

 Just out of curiosity: what do you do for a living?

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 3999
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2005,08:09   

Re "Just out of curiosity: what do you do for a living?"

Software engineer.

Henry

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2005,10:44   

Quote
Apparently you're of the mind that if one can weave a rope from strands of overcooked noodles. I prefer to work with stronger materials, myself.


No, I'm talking about weaving rope from a few dozen strands of steel. You're pretending there's no rope at all.

Quote
  But would the light from a star have to originate from the star itself?  There goes your parallax shift and relativity-calculated distances. Assuming, of course, they were ever valid
to begin with. By the way, why are you so fascinated with my geocentrism?


Gee, Bill, I don't know. Maybe the light originated from right in front of my eyes. Maybe the light is a figment of my imagination. Maybe there's no such thing as light. Where are you going with this?

My question about the distance to the nearest star is only weakly dependent on the speed of light. I'm curious to get your estimate of how far away the nearest star is for reasons that have almost nothing to do with the speed of light. So how far away is it? A couple of hundred miles? A few thousand miles? A light year or two?

I'm not particularly fascinated with your geocentrism. My point is, anyone who denies the evidence that the earth is not the center of the earth <bs><bs><bs><bs><bs> universe is going to be hopeless when it comes to the evidence for evolution. If even the simplest, most obvious contentions can't overcome your skepticism, nothing else is going to either. So why should I waste my time with you? Nothing I can say about anything will ever convince you of anything.

.

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

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

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2005,11:18   

Quote
So why should I waste my time with you? Nothing I can say about anything will ever convince you of anything.

The question of the ages...  Why do any of us waste our time here?  No one has changed a single postion about anything here.  Except maybe Evopeach realizing that Hydrogen came before Helium.  Read the 4th comment.  It seems our little Evopeach has really learned something!

  
W. Kevin Vicklund



Posts: 68
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2005,11:39   

Quote
the earth is not the center of the earth


Just to avoid any confusion over a typo, that phrase was obviously meant to be "the earth is not the center of the universe."  Please treat it as such.

  
MidnightVoice



Posts: 380
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2005,12:06   

Quote (cogzoid @ Nov. 01 2005,17:18)
The question of the ages...  Why do any of us waste our time here?  

Because the more one knows about one's opponents the better.  :D

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

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2005,17:56   

One thing I'm clearly hopeless about is checking my own work for typos. It took me forever to find the "earth is the center of the earth" typo.

It's been a long day. Our fileserver went down 10 hours ago and we're still trying to get it up (and now you know how tired I really am).

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

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

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2005,12:49   

Quote
I'm curious to get your estimate of how far away the nearest star is for reasons that have almost nothing to do with the speed of light. So how far away is it? A couple of hundred miles? A few thousand miles? A light year or two?

 Alpha Centauri is the closest, at 4.35 light years (assuming constant speed, of course).

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2005,16:36   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 02 2005,18:49)
 Alpha Centauri is the closest, at 4.35 light years (assuming constant speed, of course).

Okay, so in a geocentric universe, A. Centauri revolves around the earth once every 24 hours, right?

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

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

  
MDPotter



Posts: 12
Joined: July 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2005,05:16   

Quote
Alpha Centauri is the closest, at 4.35 light years (assuming constant speed, of course).

Wrrroooongggg!!!
Sit down, go back to the end of the line.
You ID clowns have such a hard time keeping the basic facts straight, must be the rigor of simultaneously juggling so many lies.
The closest star to the earth (besides the sun) is proxima centauri.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2005,06:14   

Quote (MDPotter @ Nov. 03 2005,11:16)
Wrrroooongggg!!!
Sit down, go back to the end of the line.

Good point, MD, but not really relevant to my question. So, Bill, assuming an orbital radius of 4.35ly, would you care to compute the velocity that would allow a complete orbit every 24 hours?

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

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

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2005,12:47   

MD Potter slobbered:
Quote
Wrrroooongggg!!!
Sit down, go back to the end of the line.
You ID clowns have such a hard time keeping the basic facts straight, must be the rigor of simultaneously juggling so many lies.
The closest star to the earth (besides the sun) is proxima centauri.

Which is part of the Alpha Centauri star system. If you want to pawn this little red wannabee off as a real star, be my guest. By the way, do you know any optics experts? The evo community seems a little short at the moment....
Quote
Good point, MD, but not really relevant to my question. So, Bill, assuming an orbital radius of 4.35ly, would you care to compute the velocity that would allow a complete orbit every 24 hours?

I know my slow responses must be frustrating, "Matlock" Murphy, but no need to rush your cross. Remember F. Lee Bailey's advice: trappeth thine enemy before thou goest for the kill. But let's keep the orbit simple and circular, to better match your reasoning: 6.88E11 m/s would be the velocity.

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

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2005,12:49   

Whoops, make that 2.99E12

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2005,13:07   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 03 2005,18:49)
Whoops, make that 2.99E12

Which, of course, is several orders of magnitude beyond c.

But I'm assuming you think Einstein is completely wrong, so I'm not going to use that as part of my argument. Let's do it this way:

Using very rough approximations, all of which work in Bill's favor, so we can do the math in our heads as we're walking through that den of iniquity, downtown San Francisco. Let's assume:

   * That p. Centauri (or a. Centauri, doesn't matter which) is only 4ly away;
   * That a light-year is only 5 X 10^12 miles (if you like, Bill, you can probably use any figure for a ly larger than 10^9 miles and I'll still be okay with it)
   * That pi = 3 (can we walk like Egyptians?)

So 4 ly times 5 trillion miles times 2  = 40 trillion miles orbital diameter times pi (which we're estimating as ~3) = 120 trillion miles orbital circumference.

Let's make a day 30 hours long to make the arithmetic radically simple (and to make matters easier on Mr. Paley), and we get an orbital speed (let's not worry about vector quantities yet) of 4 trillion miles an hour, which is in reasonable accord with Bill's figure of 6.68 trillion miles an hour.

Let's further assume, again, that Einstein's wrong, and c is not a barrier to velocity, but assume that Newton's law of gravity (which, after all, has been around a bit longer) is more or less accurate.

So, Bill, here's your homework assignment. Given an orbital radius of 20 trillion miles and an orbital velocity (we couldn't avoid vector quantities forever) in the neighborhood of 4 trillion miles an hour, would you care to solve for the mass of the earth? (Since Bill says the heavens revolve around the earth, not that the earth and the heavens are orbiting a common center of mass, we can probably assume the mass of p. Centauri is much smaller than the mass of the earth, and hence can ignore it.)  I have the feeling you're going to come up with a value that's a little high to be believable. High enough to squash us all flat, I'm guessing.

I'm using English units under the assumption that Bill really doesn't like the metric system, since communists (and, worse, the French) use it (although I will note he used it himself, presumably to make the math easier). Even though it makes the formulae harder. But hey, Bill tells us he's a smart guy.

Sorry I did this all at once, but all the suspense was getting tedious.

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

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

  
The Ghost of Paley



Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2005,13:53   

Quote
would you care to solve for the mass of the earth?

To simplify matters, I decided to use Kepler's third law under the assumption of a circular orbit, and I obtained an Earth mass approximately 9.255 E 26 times higher than the accepted figure. No surprise, given the initial assumptions. But there is more to the story here, although I'll let "Matlock" Murphy gloat for now.......

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2005,14:04   

Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Nov. 03 2005,19:53)
Quote
would you care to solve for the mass of the earth?

To simplify matters, I decided to use Kepler's third law under the assumption of a circular orbit, and I obtained an Earth mass approximately 9.255 E 26 times higher than the accepted figure. No surprise, given the initial assumptions. But there is more to the story here, although I'll let "Matlock" Murphy gloat for now.......

Wow. Without even figuring out the right equation to use, my bone-stupid estimate (i.e., "wild-ass guess") was around 1 E 50 Kg. Does that get me within a couple of orders of magnitude? I think so.

But I'm going to assume that coming up with a figure that is probably heavy for a galactic supercluster doesn't change Bill's mind about his geocentrism. Am I right?

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

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

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

Pages: (36) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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