RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (51) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   
  Topic: forastero's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
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: 3221
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: 3221
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: 4383
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: 3221
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: 684
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: 5356
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: 3221
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: 3221
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.

  
  1510 replies since Oct. 21 2011,05:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (51) < 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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