RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (19) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... >   
  Topic: DI EN&V, Open comments and archive< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JohnW



Posts: 2167
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2012,11:52   

Quote (OgreMkV @ July 20 2012,09:29)
Quote (Henry J @ July 20 2012,10:56)
Quote
Hey Joe, can you figure out why this doesn't actually work?

It's basic algebra.

You know that.
I know that.

But does Joe "m stands for millenia" G know that?  I'm skeptical.

Having Joe answer that question would probably be another week long laugh fest.

Hey Richard, any interest in tweaking the joey?

Channeling...

[joe]I spotted the trick.  a can't be equal to b.  They're different letters.[/joe]

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3221
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 20 2012,12:44   

Now dat right der is funny.  I don't care who you are.

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

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

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 995
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2012,19:57   

It's Zimmer game, set and match!

Took out both Klinghoffer, aka, Klinkletinkle and Luskin, aka, The Gerb.

Totally screwed, blued and tattooed!

Major Fail at the Disco Tute but don't worry, kiddies, the Tutes will be back with their latest hits, that is, their past hits again soon at a creationist church basement near you.

So, Luskin was shown up as the liar he is, and Klinkletinkle was shown up as the ... well, what is Klinkletinkle?  Not so much a liar as a guy with a small penis and a big mouth.  His favorite song must be "Satisfaction."  Just saying.

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1249
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2012,15:01   

Gerb is deeply hurt: Zimmer has misrepresented him. Isn't it true that the telomeric DNA at the fusion sites is degenerate?
And besides, as for an actual fusion of chromosomes, he's "very open to that".

But:    
Quote
Again, my main argument about chromosomal fusion isn't that there's no fusion -- it's that if there is fusion, that doesn't demonstrate human/ape common ancestry.

My bolding

I was tempted to start a poll: After last week's discussion all over the internet, does he still not understand the point, or is he confident his readers still don't understand the point?

Link

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 3509
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2012,15:25   

Convincing shmincing. La la La.

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

Pat Robertson

  
JohnW



Posts: 2167
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2012,15:27   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 25 2012,13:01)
I was tempted to start a poll: After last week's discussion all over the internet, does he still not understand the point, or is he confident his readers still don't understand the point?

Oooh, trick question!  It's "both", yes?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 995
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 25 2012,16:09   

Quote (Kattarina98 @ July 25 2012,15:01)
Gerb is deeply hurt: Zimmer has misrepresented him. Isn't it true that the telomeric DNA at the fusion sites is degenerate?
And besides, as for an actual fusion of chromosomes, he's "very open to that".

But:    
Quote
Again, my main argument about chromosomal fusion isn't that there's no fusion -- it's that if there is fusion, that doesn't demonstrate human/ape common ancestry.

My bolding

I was tempted to start a poll: After last week's discussion all over the internet, does he still not understand the point, or is he confident his readers still don't understand the point?

Link

"Simply a douchebag." would have to be a poll choice.

  
Freddie



Posts: 362
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2012,01:58   

ENV has a new post up regarding the evolution of the mammalian ear.
     
Quote
Secondly, if one reads the paper carefully, it is curious that (as noted by the authors), "Given the phylogeny, the [definitive mammalian middle ear] evolved several times independently." An earlier paper in Nature, published in 2007, reported on the discovery of a fossil of a eutriconodont mammal species called Yanoconodon (Luo et al., 2007). Curiously, as explained by this editor's summary of the paper,

     
Quote
The situation is not as clear-cut as it seems. The evolutionary relationships of the fossil suggest that either the "modern" middle ear evolved twice, independently or that it evolved and was then lost in at least one ancient lineage.

It thus appears to be the case that the middle ear evolved independently at least twice: in monotremes and in placentals and marsupials. Multiple occurrences of difficult evolutionary trajectories is something that is not easy to square with the standard neo-Darwinian narrative.


Whenever I see a quote like that from a 'summary' of the paper the alarm bells start ringing.  The paper is behind a paywall but perhaps someone can check to see what was said in the body rather than in the 'teaser' summary text.

Oh, and heads we win tails you lose:
 
Quote
There are a few points that are worth raising here. Firstly, even supposing that the hypothesis of common ancestry is valid, this lends little traction to neo-Darwinism (one has to distinguish between pattern and process) and it does nothing to undermine the hypothesis of design. ID, in its purest sense, has nothing to say about common ancestry. ID does, however, open up the possibility that universal hereditary continuity may be false, perhaps radically so. Many of us Darwin critics, therefore, also happen to be skeptical of common ancestry. But it would not invalidate our position on ID if common ancestry turned out to be true.

Linky

--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 964
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2012,03:10   

Quote (Freddie @ July 25 2012,23:58)
ENV has a new post up regarding the evolution of the mammalian ear.
     
Quote
Secondly, if one reads the paper carefully, it is curious that (as noted by the authors), "Given the phylogeny, the [definitive mammalian middle ear] evolved several times independently." An earlier paper in Nature, published in 2007, reported on the discovery of a fossil of a eutriconodont mammal species called Yanoconodon (Luo et al., 2007). Curiously, as explained by this editor's summary of the paper,

     
Quote
The situation is not as clear-cut as it seems. The evolutionary relationships of the fossil suggest that either the "modern" middle ear evolved twice, independently or that it evolved and was then lost in at least one ancient lineage.

It thus appears to be the case that the middle ear evolved independently at least twice: in monotremes and in placentals and marsupials. Multiple occurrences of difficult evolutionary trajectories is something that is not easy to square with the standard neo-Darwinian narrative.


Whenever I see a quote like that from a 'summary' of the paper the alarm bells start ringing.  The paper is behind a paywall but perhaps someone can check to see what was said in the body rather than in the 'teaser' summary text.

Oh, and heads we win tails you lose:
 
Quote
There are a few points that are worth raising here. Firstly, even supposing that the hypothesis of common ancestry is valid, this lends little traction to neo-Darwinism (one has to distinguish between pattern and process) and it does nothing to undermine the hypothesis of design. ID, in its purest sense, has nothing to say about common ancestry. ID does, however, open up the possibility that universal hereditary continuity may be false, perhaps radically so. Many of us Darwin critics, therefore, also happen to be skeptical of common ancestry. But it would not invalidate our position on ID if common ancestry turned out to be true.

Linky

"ID, in its purest sense, has nothing to say about common ancestry."

Somebody better tell joe g, stat! After all, he, as a card carrying spokesIDiot for ID, says a lot about common ancestry/descent (as do many or all other IDiots) and he says that "ID is OK with common descent" (when he's not arguing against common descent or is redefining it as common design of course).  

Like with joey, the other IDiots are obviously "OK" with common descent but they're also "OK" with no common descent. The bottom line is that as long as 'God-did-it' can be crammed into something, they're OK with it.

Oh, and the "hypothesis of design"? WHAT hypothesis?

"ID does, however, open up the possibility that universal hereditary continuity may be false, perhaps radically so."

The pink unicorn 'hypothesis' does, however, open up the possibility that pink unicorns can fly, perhaps gracefully so.

That IDiot did say one things that's true. They're "Darwin critics". It's all about bashing Darwin, "Darwinists", scientists, science, the ToE, etc. They have NO positive evidence for ID. To them, absolutely nothing could or would "invalidate" their "position". Their delusional, arrogant minds are already made up, and no amount of evidence to the contrary will have any effect on them.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
Kattarina98



Posts: 1249
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2012,04:19   

Edit: Deleted because it was not relevant.

Edited by Kattarina98 on July 26 2012,07:37

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
Doc Bill



Posts: 995
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 26 2012,09:03   

"ID, in its purest sense, has nothing to say."

Fixed it.

  
sparc



Posts: 1650
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 01 2012,23:30   

ENV praises W.-E. Lönnig's The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.) What do we really know?

1. He is not working at the MPI anymore and he was forced to remove his creationist bullshit from the institute's server 9 years ago

2. The "book" appers at VERLAGSHAUS MONSENSTEIN UND VANNERDAT OHG which is also run as ruckzuckbuch.de because it is just a print on demand publisher.

3. Before print on demand was available Lönnig self-published his books at "Naturwissenschaftlicher Verlag Köln" which happens to have the same address as is home.

4. His "work" on giraffe is not new. See e.g. N. Matzke's Now that's a stretch at PT.

5. Why pay for something most of which Lönnig is offering for free on his website:

The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) Part 1
The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis) Part 2

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 3509
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2012,00:05   

http://www.whyevolution.com/giraffe....fe.html

Sorry about the source. I'm posting from a tablet and having trouble finding the Gould article.

Edited by midwifetoad on Aug. 02 2012,00:09

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

Pat Robertson

  
sparc



Posts: 1650
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2012,00:46   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Aug. 02 2012,00:05)
http://www.whyevolution.com/giraffe....fe.html

Sorry about the source. I'm posting from a tablet and having trouble finding the Gould article.

The talest tale.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
afarensis



Posts: 1001
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2012,21:02   

It his been almost a month since Casey  promised "I'll be discussing this issue more in the coming weeks."   To date the only thing he has done is publish the first five or so paragraphs from chapter three of the book...

Edit to fix typos

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

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

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

   
Doc Bill



Posts: 995
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2012,21:50   

The Gerb got his furry little ass kicked to oblivion by an actual science writer, Carl Zimmer, and a few friends on the Loom.

Axe and Gauger, (are they a couple?  I'm thinking 69 on a lab bench.  Do you think Ann does Brazilian or is Axe a carpet lover?  Inquiring minds want to know!)

Anyway, I forgot where I was.

  
Henry J



Posts: 3964
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2012,22:01   

Quote
3. Before print on demand was available L?nnig self-published his books at "Naturwissenschaftlicher Verlag K?ln" which happens to have the same address as is home.

what a coinkidink!!!

  
afarensis



Posts: 1001
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 02 2012,22:23   

Quote (Doc Bill @ Aug. 02 2012,21:50)
The Gerb got his furry little ass kicked to oblivion by an actual science writer, Carl Zimmer, and a few friends on the Loom.

Axe and Gauger, (are they a couple?  I'm thinking 69 on a lab bench.  Do you think Ann does Brazilian or is Axe a carpet lover?  Inquiring minds want to know!)

Anyway, I forgot where I was.

I figured that had something to do with it.

--------------
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.

   
Bob O'H



Posts: 1948
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 03 2012,04:30   

Quote (sparc @ Aug. 01 2012,23:30)
ENV praises W.-E. Lönnig's The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.) What do we really know?

1. He is not working at the MPI anymore and he was forced to remove his creationist bullshit from the institute's server 9 years ago

To be fair, they did put '(retired)' after 'Senior Scientist, Department of Molecular Plant Genetics, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research', because that's so much clearer than using "was" instead of "is".

--------------
ID theorists don’t postulate a designer for their arguments. - Crandaddy
There is no connection between a peppered moth, natural selection, and religion that I can see. - FtK

   
afarensis



Posts: 1001
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 10 2012,18:08   

So, apparently, Luskin has been excerpting parts of chapter three on EN&V. I have only read this one and have already discovered on major error on Casey's part. I'll be writing a post on it but it the meantime can any one spot the error:

 
Quote
There are some reasons for skepticism over whether the bones of "Lucy" represent a single individual, or even a single species. In a video playing at the exhibit, Lucy's discoverer Donald Johanson admitted that when he found the fossil, the bones were scattered across a hillside, where he "looked up the slope and there were other bones sticking out." Johanson's written account explains further how the bones were not found together: "[S]ince the fossil wasn't found in situ, it could have come from anywhere above. There's no matrix on any of the bones we've found either. All you can do is make probability statements."66


Edited to add: see Luskin, Science and Human Origins, and Dik-Dik Feces for the answer.
Edited to fix typo

--------------
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.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2012,11:41   

What a bunch of liars.

New post up at ENV:
     
Quote
If human beings evolved from ape-like creatures, what were the transitional species between ape-like hominins and the truly human-like members of the genus Homo found in the fossil record?

     
Quote
In the absence of fossil evidence, evolutionary claims about the transition to Homo are said to be mere "inferences" made by studying the non-transitional fossils we do have, and then assuming that a transition must have occurred somehow, sometime, and someplace.

     
Quote
As another commentator proposed, the evidence implies a "big bang theory" of the appearance of our genus Homo.115


115? Why, that'd be a footnote.
     
Quote
"New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution" University of Michigan News Service (January 10, 2000)

Here is that footnote in it's entirety:
     
Quote
January 10, 2000

New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution

The first members of early Homo sapiens are really quite distinct from their australopithecine predecessors and contemporaries. Perhaps the most fundamental dissimilarity, dramatic size difference, is shown in this correctly scaled comparison of the reconstructed skeletons of two women: Lucy, a 3-million-year-old australopithecine from Ethiopia who stood about three-and-a-half feet tell; and ER 1808, a 1.6-million-year-old woman of our species from Kenya who stood 5 feet 9. Australopithecine contemporaries of ER 1808 were as small as Lucy.
ANN ARBOR—Two million years ago somewhere in Africa, a small group of individuals became separated from other australopithecines. This population bottleneck led to a series of sudden, interrelated changes—in body size, brain size, skeletal proportions, and behavior—that jump-started the evolution of our species.

That is the conclusion of a new University of Michigan study published in the current (January 2000) issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution that analyzes a broad range of genetic, fossil, and archeological evidence to decipher the most likely scenario for the start of human evolution.

The analysis, by researchers at the U-M Department of Anthropology, is the first to examine the full spectrum of paleontological, archeological, and genetic evidence available, each reflecting a different part of the puzzle of human origins. By estimating the ranges of error in the different types of evidence, the researchers were able to narrow down the common, overlapping areas of agreement to construct an explanation that disproves some high-profile recent theories and supports one of the oldest modern versions of the origin of homo sapiens.

"All the available evidence supports an 'Out of Africa' theory, that humans first evolved in Africa about two million years ago, then spread to other regions of the world," says John Hawks, first author of the paper and now an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Utah. "This original population lived before humans colonized regions outside of Africa. In fact, it was the act of becoming human that made these colonizations possible."

Examining the anatomical evidence, the authors, including U-M anthropologist Milford Wolpoff, conclude that a "genetic revolution" took place in a small group isolated from other australopithecines. "The earliest H. sapiens remains differ significantly from australopithecines in both size and anatomical details," notes Wolpoff. "Insofar as we can tell, these changes were sudden and not gradual."

A second reason for suspecting that a population bottleneck led to a rapid genetic reorganization that started the process of human evolution comes from archeological evidence of a series of behavioral changes suggestive of a new adaptive pattern of hunting, gathering and scavenging. "Body size is a key element in these behavioral changes," the authors note, "because of the locomotor changes that large body size denotes, and the increased metabolic resources it requires." These behavioral changes are far more massive and sudden than any earlier changes known for hominids, they point out.

According to the researchers, the available genetic data do not disprove a simple model of exponential population growth following a bottleneck two million years ago and extending through the Pleistocene Epoch, when ice covered much of North America and Europe. But they are incompatible with a more recent population-size bottleneck.

"Many details of subsequent human evolution over the period of the ice ages remain unclear, but one certain finding from both anthropological and genetic data is that there was no later time when the size of the human species became small again," says Hawks. "So the 'Eve theory' of modern human origins, which states that modern human populations very recently arose as a new African species that replaced all other indigenous peoples such as Neanderthals, can be put to rest. "

Co-authors of the study with Hawks and Wolpoff are Keith Hunley, U-M Department of Anthropology, and Sang-Hee Lee, Department of Biosystems Science, Graduate University for Advanced Studies, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.

Contact: Diane Swanbrow
Phone: (734) xxx-4416
E-mail:


Seems to me that they are relying on that for the entire claim in that post titled A Big Bang Theory of Homo

Yet that 12 year old press release offers no support what so ever for ID at any level.

They must really know their audience at ENV.

115
Liars.

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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2039
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 13 2012,18:13   

"There were giants in the earth in those days..."

Just wait. Someone will use that for real.

--------------
"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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5353
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,08:39   



Spam from user "monster" deleted.

Quote
SPAM, by AJC1 on Flickr.


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

   
Dr.GH



Posts: 1946
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,11:02   

Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 10 2012,16:08)
So, apparently, Luskin has been excerpting parts of chapter three on EN&V.  see Luskin, Science and Human Origins, and Dik-Dik Feces for the answer.

Good job of taking Luskin to the woodshed!

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

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

   
afarensis



Posts: 1001
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,20:00   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Aug. 13 2012,11:41)
What a bunch of liars.

New post up at ENV:
     
Quote
If human beings evolved from ape-like creatures, what were the transitional species between ape-like hominins and the truly human-like members of the genus Homo found in the fossil record?

     
Quote
In the absence of fossil evidence, evolutionary claims about the transition to Homo are said to be mere "inferences" made by studying the non-transitional fossils we do have, and then assuming that a transition must have occurred somehow, sometime, and someplace.

     
Quote
As another commentator proposed, the evidence implies a "big bang theory" of the appearance of our genus Homo.115


115? Why, that'd be a footnote.
     
Quote
"New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution" University of Michigan News Service (January 10, 2000)

Here is that footnote in it's entirety:
     
Quote
January 10, 2000

New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution

The first members of early Homo sapiens are really quite distinct from their australopithecine predecessors and contemporaries. Perhaps the most fundamental dissimilarity, dramatic size difference, is shown in this correctly scaled comparison of the reconstructed skeletons of two women: Lucy, a 3-million-year-old australopithecine from Ethiopia who stood about three-and-a-half feet tell; and ER 1808, a 1.6-million-year-old woman of our species from Kenya who stood 5 feet 9. Australopithecine contemporaries of ER 1808 were as small as Lucy.
ANN ARBOR—Two million years ago somewhere in Africa, a small group of individuals became separated from other australopithecines. This population bottleneck led to a series of sudden, interrelated changes—in body size, brain size, skeletal proportions, and behavior—that jump-started the evolution of our species.

That is the conclusion of a new University of Michigan study published in the current (January 2000) issue of Molecular Biology and Evolution that analyzes a broad range of genetic, fossil, and archeological evidence to decipher the most likely scenario for the start of human evolution.

The analysis, by researchers at the U-M Department of Anthropology, is the first to examine the full spectrum of paleontological, archeological, and genetic evidence available, each reflecting a different part of the puzzle of human origins. By estimating the ranges of error in the different types of evidence, the researchers were able to narrow down the common, overlapping areas of agreement to construct an explanation that disproves some high-profile recent theories and supports one of the oldest modern versions of the origin of homo sapiens.

"All the available evidence supports an 'Out of Africa' theory, that humans first evolved in Africa about two million years ago, then spread to other regions of the world," says John Hawks, first author of the paper and now an assistant professor of anthropology at the University of Utah. "This original population lived before humans colonized regions outside of Africa. In fact, it was the act of becoming human that made these colonizations possible."

Examining the anatomical evidence, the authors, including U-M anthropologist Milford Wolpoff, conclude that a "genetic revolution" took place in a small group isolated from other australopithecines. "The earliest H. sapiens remains differ significantly from australopithecines in both size and anatomical details," notes Wolpoff. "Insofar as we can tell, these changes were sudden and not gradual."

A second reason for suspecting that a population bottleneck led to a rapid genetic reorganization that started the process of human evolution comes from archeological evidence of a series of behavioral changes suggestive of a new adaptive pattern of hunting, gathering and scavenging. "Body size is a key element in these behavioral changes," the authors note, "because of the locomotor changes that large body size denotes, and the increased metabolic resources it requires." These behavioral changes are far more massive and sudden than any earlier changes known for hominids, they point out.

According to the researchers, the available genetic data do not disprove a simple model of exponential population growth following a bottleneck two million years ago and extending through the Pleistocene Epoch, when ice covered much of North America and Europe. But they are incompatible with a more recent population-size bottleneck.

"Many details of subsequent human evolution over the period of the ice ages remain unclear, but one certain finding from both anthropological and genetic data is that there was no later time when the size of the human species became small again," says Hawks. "So the 'Eve theory' of modern human origins, which states that modern human populations very recently arose as a new African species that replaced all other indigenous peoples such as Neanderthals, can be put to rest. "

Co-authors of the study with Hawks and Wolpoff are Keith Hunley, U-M Department of Anthropology, and Sang-Hee Lee, Department of Biosystems Science, Graduate University for Advanced Studies, Hayama, Kanagawa, Japan.

Contact: Diane Swanbrow
Phone: (734) xxx-4416
E-mail:


Seems to me that they are relying on that for the entire claim in that post titled A Big Bang Theory of Homo

Yet that 12 year old press release offers no support what so ever for ID at any level.

They must really know their audience at ENV.

115
Liars.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that Luskin climbed upon Axe and Gauger and Gish-galloped all over EN&V? :D

--------------
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.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4352
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,20:26   

Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 10 2012,18:08)
So, apparently, Luskin has been excerpting parts of chapter three on EN&V. I have only read this one and have already discovered on major error on Casey's part. I'll be writing a post on it but it the meantime can any one spot the error:

 
Quote
There are some reasons for skepticism over whether the bones of "Lucy" represent a single individual, or even a single species. In a video playing at the exhibit, Lucy's discoverer Donald Johanson admitted that when he found the fossil, the bones were scattered across a hillside, where he "looked up the slope and there were other bones sticking out." Johanson's written account explains further how the bones were not found together: "[S]ince the fossil wasn't found in situ, it could have come from anywhere above. There's no matrix on any of the bones we've found either. All you can do is make probability statements."66


Edited to add: see Luskin, Science and Human Origins, and Dik-Dik Feces for the answer.
Edited to fix typo

Congratulations 2 U AFFY!

You are making tghe Baby jesus cry AND making Luskin cry into his eyebrows -

I recommend everyone going over to Pandas thumb to read what Our Very Own Most Favoritest Afer Man has written!

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
afarensis



Posts: 1001
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,20:55   

Quote (J-Dog @ Aug. 14 2012,20:26)
Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 10 2012,18:08)
So, apparently, Luskin has been excerpting parts of chapter three on EN&V. I have only read this one and have already discovered on major error on Casey's part. I'll be writing a post on it but it the meantime can any one spot the error:

   
Quote
There are some reasons for skepticism over whether the bones of "Lucy" represent a single individual, or even a single species. In a video playing at the exhibit, Lucy's discoverer Donald Johanson admitted that when he found the fossil, the bones were scattered across a hillside, where he "looked up the slope and there were other bones sticking out." Johanson's written account explains further how the bones were not found together: "[S]ince the fossil wasn't found in situ, it could have come from anywhere above. There's no matrix on any of the bones we've found either. All you can do is make probability statements."66


Edited to add: see Luskin, Science and Human Origins, and Dik-Dik Feces for the answer.
Edited to fix typo

Congratulations 2 U AFFY!

You are making tghe Baby jesus cry AND making Luskin cry into his eyebrows -

I recommend everyone going over to Pandas thumb to read what Our Very Own Most Favoritest Afer Man has written!

Thanks, a slight correction it is not at PT it is at my blog.

--------------
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: 1001
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 14 2012,22:30   

Oops, my bad. Didn't see that post ???

--------------
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.

   
J-Dog



Posts: 4352
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 15 2012,18:43   

Quote (afarensis @ Aug. 14 2012,22:30)
Oops, my bad. Didn't see that post ???

that's ok - I hope I make as much sense as you do when I'm 2.5 MYO...:)

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
afarensis



Posts: 1001
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2012,20:39   

Moar!

Edit to add: Moar is such a simple word, you'd think I'd be able to spell it...

--------------
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.

   
  556 replies since Jan. 20 2011,10:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (19) < ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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