RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (58) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   
  Topic: Evolution of the horse; a problem for Darwinism?, For Daniel Smith to present his argument< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,07:54   

Daniel:  
Quote
Right now, the company I work for is talking about rebuilding 8 machines (which are pretty much exact duplicates of one another) - one a year - over an 8 year period.  Even though we'll have the same company come in and do the work, we'll end up with 8 very different machines - since the technology will change every year as the machines go in.

But will any of this new technology be used in any machines made by any other company? Or in any machines made by your company to do other things? Because in biology that is not the case. A new technology, say mammary glands, that is successful in one group of organisms is never picked up by another group, fish for example. You will never find a fern with flowers or a treefrog with dragonfly wings. The one exception is in some micro-organisms, in which the transfer of genetic material is well-established.

BTW, although fossils loom large in the general public's mind (and I include creationists and IDers here) as far as biologists are concerned they form a minor part of the evidence for the theory of evolution. This has been the case right from Origin of Species.

--------------
All sweeping statements are wrong.

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,08:27   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 26 2007,05:39)
Quote
And you should think about my second objection: human, lungfish and trout. What does common design predict about their genes?
Common Design would predict that lungfish and trout would be closer to each other than to humans.  Perhaps, once they get the entire genomes sorted out, they'll find this to be true.  For now, with the concentration seemingly focused on coding regions - it appears not to be true.  I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I love this part.  "Of course the evidence is against me now.  But imaginary, contradictory evidence that has yet to be discovered will certainly support my argument."  This, more than anything else, drives home the hopelessness of trying to reason with creationists.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4377
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,09:44   

Quote

Common Design would predict that lungfish and trout would be closer to each other than to humans.


We don't have to wait to know that Denton's assertion is incorrect.

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

    
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,09:45   

[quote]   [quote]Please explain how Darwin was wrong when he predicted nested hierarchies, then.[/quote]
Can you supply that quote from Darwin?[/quote]
Already done. Please explain how his prediction was wrong.
       [quote]  [quote]They fit into multiple NHs, but one of "these characteristics" that you socleverly omitted was the superimposability of the NH of the assembled objects over any NH independently constructed from their components. Why did you omit that, Daniel? And if you disagree, show me the NHs you can construct from the relationships between lug nuts for GM cars and trucks.
...
But it couldn't be superimposed on NHs derived from their components. In fact, virtually none of the components of cars can be organized into nested hierarchies.
[/quote]
That's not true.[/quote]
     
Quote
 Most components can also be organized into nested hierarchies.

No, very few can. As Richard pointed out, many will be identical and others will be outsourced to other companies. We don't see either of those things in biology. We get (allowing for systematic and experimental errors) a single, identically-branching nested hierarchy when we look independently at either functional or nonfunctional differences.
       
Quote
Speaking from experience (since my job involves troubleshooting and repairing very large, complex, industrial CNC machinery) I can verify that the parts of a machine evolve right along with the machine and can be placed in separate but superimposable NHs.

Then show us the data.
       
Quote
Right now, the company I work for is talking about rebuilding 8 machines (which are pretty much exact duplicates of one another) - one a year - over an 8 year period.  Even though we'll have the same company come in and do the work, we'll end up with 8 very different machines - since the technology will change every year as the machines go in.

Yes, but that isn't remotely close to showing that they and their components will fit into a single NH.
             
Quote
     
Quote

The ladder part. It's stupid. The equidistance is predicted.

Where did Denton assume a ladder?  I don't remember that part.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html
Read the last half of part III.
     
Quote
Like I said, I'm willing to look at any and all evidence.  I'm less interested in opinions though.

Then why have you offered nothing but opinions?
     
Quote
     
Quote
 
Quote
Well, so far you've mostly called me names, and you haven't (yet) shown me anything that convinces me I'm wrong.

Mostly? Show me a single instance in which I called you a name, Daniel.

OK,    
Quote
you have the appealing quality of massive arrogance, made even more appealing by massive ignorance... so please save your lying for ignorant lay people.

Does that qualify?

No, because there's not a single name in there.
[quote]    
Quote
 
Quote
Sorry, but you're fudging already. The tree is not theoretical in any way. It is simply a graphic representation of the actual evidence--the identities and differences between the sequences.

OK

Then why do you go back on that below?
   
Quote
   
Quote

What do you conclude from these relationships? If CB2 was designed, when was it designed?

When was it designed or when was it implemented?  I have no idea when it was designed, but when it was first implemented can be found out I guess - if you find the earliest fossil evidence for that fish.

Fossils aren't needed for this. This provides much more detail than fossils. And you can do both design and implementation. Just give me a date that explains the relationships between these sequences. MET explains this beautifully.
   
Quote
   
Quote
   
Quote

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to learn from this, but I'm open to whatever it is you think this shows.  You'll just have to spell it out in layman's terms for me.

It's a starting point for examining the evidence and making predictions, something I predict that you're afraid to do. Where will a reptilian CB2 branch off on this tree? Why do both CB1 and CB2 fit into a single nested hierarchy?

I don't know the answers to those questions but I'm not afraid of them - I just need to figure out what you're asking and how you're arriving at your conclusions.

My conclusions don't matter--what matters is whether your hypothesis can explain this evidence and make predictions about evidence you haven't seen yet.
   
Quote
I need to see the evidence for myself - I won't just take your word for it.

I'm showing you evidence and you are denying that it is evidence.     
   
Quote
The tree is theoretical in that it is just a graphic representation of a proposed relationship.

Daniel, now you're just lying. There is nothing theoretical about that tree; it simply shows the mathematical relationships between the sequences. It is evidence. So, my question is, what hypothesis do YOU advance that explains these relationships and predicts the relationship of other data to these data?
   
Quote
How do you know these genes are not convergent?

If they had converged, they wouldn't be predicted to have this mathematical relationship with each other. However, for you to understand that, you'd have to grasp the concept of NESTED hierarchy, and you clearly don't.

Again, MET explains this relationship and makes predictions about where new sequences will be placed--before we have them.

Your job is to propose a hypothesis. Instead, I predict that you will continue to falsely claim that these trees are theoretical.

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,09:47   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,09:44)
Quote

Common Design would predict that lungfish and trout would be closer to each other than to humans.


We don't have to wait to know that Denton's assertion is incorrect.

That's a much more lucid explanation than the TO page to which I pointed Daniel, thanks.

  
VMartin



Posts: 525
Joined: Nov. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,12:21   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,06:42)
     
Quote

Fossils are unnecessary? Wow. You do realize that fossils are empirical, observable evidence don't you?


<cop drama>

Lt. DS: The lab boys failed to retrieve any fingerprints in this case. We'll have to file it as unsolved.

Lt. JAM: Why would we do that? The lab boys did find the perp's hair at the scene. We got an excellent DNA match to a guy with a motive and no alibi. The fingerprints are unnecessary.

Lt. DS: Fingerprints are unnecessary? Wow. You do realize that fingerprints are empirical, observable evidence don't you?

[Rest of people in room look at Lt. DS, jaws dropping  in amazement.]

</cop drama>



The another drama about fossils proving evolution of man:

Somewhere in England. Medieval castle. JAM is making lecture to an audience standing in front of a big human skull.


JAM: And here we see the skull of the nobleman George Brave.

The audience adjourns to the next room. There is a small skull.  

JAM: And here we see the skull of the nobleman George Brave.

DS: But we have seen it in the previous room!

JAM: Yes, but this the skull when George Brave was a child.

--------------
I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.-
Charles Darwin

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,12:23   

Martin, since you reject the 'Darwinian' account of the evolution of horses, would you share with us what you think the correct explanation is?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,12:29   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 26 2007,09:47)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,09:44)
 
Quote

Common Design would predict that lungfish and trout would be closer to each other than to humans.


We don't have to wait to know that Denton's assertion is incorrect.

That's a much more lucid explanation than the TO page to which I pointed Daniel, thanks.

Still, judging from that page, Cyt C gives some unexpected results. The carp should be closer to us than the lamprey.
And Sordaria is a fungus, isn't it? If so, it should also be closer to us than maize.
Probably, distance-based phylogenies are less reliable than cladistics. Or maybe this has something to do with Cyt C.

EDIT: it's Neurospora, not Sordaria.
Anyway, the problem remains. Yeasts (Saccharomyces) and Neurospora are ascomycetes. They should have a similar genetic distance compared to us. How can maize be between the two?

EDIT2: the problem is solved when considering the distance between Neurospora and yeast (that is quite high however).

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,12:41   

Quote (jeannot @ Sep. 26 2007,12:29)
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 26 2007,09:47)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,09:44)
 
Quote

Common Design would predict that lungfish and trout would be closer to each other than to humans.


We don't have to wait to know that Denton's assertion is incorrect.

That's a much more lucid explanation than the TO page to which I pointed Daniel, thanks.

Still, judging from that page, Cyt C gives some unexpected results. The carp should be closer to us than the lamprey.
And Sordaria is a fungus, isn't it? If so, it should also be closer to us than maize.
Probably, distance-based phylogenies are less reliable than cladistics. Or maybe this has something to do with Cyt C.

VMartin, what's your take on that?

:p

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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1232
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:02   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 26 2007,06:01)
 
Quote (JAM @ Sep. 25 2007,10:58)

D:Nested hierarchies are evidence of "top-down" evolution - where the higher categories are emplaced first - as opposed to evolution by speciation which would not create a nested hierarchy at all but would look more like a road map with lineages wandering aimlessly around.

Please explain how Darwin was wrong when he predicted nested hierarchies, then.

Can you supply that quote from Darwin?
     
Quote

They fit into multiple NHs, but one of "these characteristics" that you socleverly omitted was the superimposability of the NH of the assembled objects over any NH independently constructed from their components. Why did you omit that, Daniel? And if you disagree, show me the NHs you can construct from the relationships between lug nuts for GM cars and trucks.
...
But it couldn't be superimposed on NHs derived from their components. In fact, virtually none of the components of cars can be organized into nested hierarchies.

That's not true.  


So you claim.  Can you do it?

Let me choose automobiles, from the present and from the past (since I know nothing of your machines and I can presume you know something about automobiles).

Make a nested hierarchy of

Vega (1971, 1977)
El Camino (1959, 1987)
Model T (1908, 1927)
Model A (1903)
Model A (1927)
Corvair (1960, 1969)
Corvette (1953, 2007)
Porsche 911 (1964)
Altima (1993, 2007)
Avalon (1995, 2007)
S-10 (1982, 2004)
F150 (1948, 2007)
Metropolitan (1954, 1962)
Stanley Steamer (1903, 1923)
Edsel (1958)
Murano (2003, 2007)
Coupe Deville (1949, 1993)
Crossfire (2004, 2007)
Miata (1989, 2007)

Be sure to tell us what it is based on:
safety equipment, engine design, number of doors, etc.

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

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

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4377
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:17   

Quote

The another drama about fossils proving evolution of man:


A fairly major difference between our little dialogues is that I can show the various points of analogy that were retained in mine.

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

    
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:30   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 26 2007,08:27)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 26 2007,05:39)
 
Quote
And you should think about my second objection: human, lungfish and trout. What does common design predict about their genes?
Common Design would predict that lungfish and trout would be closer to each other than to humans.  Perhaps, once they get the entire genomes sorted out, they'll find this to be true.  For now, with the concentration seemingly focused on coding regions - it appears not to be true.  I guess we'll have to wait and see.

I love this part.  "Of course the evidence is against me now.  But imaginary, contradictory evidence that has yet to be discovered will certainly support my argument."  This, more than anything else, drives home the hopelessness of trying to reason with creationists.

Well, he said  
Quote
I am convinced of one thing: whatever happened was by design.
???
Daniel, why not trust the evidence?
From the fossil record, we expected the lungfish and coelacanths to be more closely related to us than they are to the trout and other teleosts.
Why is that? Simply because many transitional fossils undoubtedly indicate that tetrapods descent from earlier sarcopterigian fishes (lungfish, coelacanth) during the devonian, while teleosts (ancestors of the trout and most common fishes) have been existing for a long time. This means they diverged earlier from sarcopterigians.
The fossil record also confirms the molecular phylogeny of human, trout and shark.

The same can be said about cetaceans, which diverged from other (cet)artiodactyls rather recently, and birds that diverged from earlier theropods, resulting also in a bunch of transitional fossils.
So why you think that the fossil record contradicts the current theory, I wonder.

At least, you admit that molecular data contradict you view. Most IDers would have ignored my objection.
I don't expect phylogenies based on non-coding sequences to be different. First, it will be hard do select regions that are conserved enough between those distant taxa.
We already have the complete genomes of human and zebrafish (teleost). I don't know about the lungfish or any other related group.

  
jeannot



Posts: 1200
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:36   

Quote (VMartin @ Sep. 26 2007,12:21)
The another drama about fossils proving evolution of man:

Martin, we'd love to hear your views on the evolution of man in the dedicated thread.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=5188
See you there!  :)

  
JAM



Posts: 503
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 26 2007,15:52   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Sep. 26 2007,15:02)
Make a nested hierarchy of

Vega (1971, 1977)...
Be sure to tell us what it is based on:
safety equipment, engine design, number of doors, etc.

As a former owner of a '74, I would group the Vega with fecal matter in an evolutionary hierarchy based on a number of common characteristics. Of course, nothing can be grouped with the aluminum engine's legendary oil consumption. I still remember what I said after it was T-boned at an intersection: "God, I hope this thing is totaled."

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,01:54   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,06:42)
<cop drama>
</cop drama>

I have my own cop drama for you.

Lt. DS: The lab boys found the murder weapon with the fingerprints of a known ex-con on it, plus a broken window with size 12 boot prints leading in and out of the house through it.  We'll have to arrest this man for the murder of this woman.

Lt. JAM: Why would we do that? The lab boys also found the husband's DNA all over the house and even on the wife's body.  He had obviously had recent contact with her.  Besides everyone knows that the husband always murders the wife in these cases. The fingerprints, weapon and bootprints are unnecessary.

Lt. DS: Fingerprints are unnecessary? Wow. You do realize that fingerprints are empirical, observable evidence don't you?

Lt. JAM: It doesn't matter - we've got the DNA!

[Rest of people in room look at Lt. JAM, jaws dropping  in amazement at his excellent police work.]

OK, now that we've dispensed with that foolishness, can we get back to talking about the evidence?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,03:05   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Sep. 26 2007,07:54)
Daniel:                          
Quote
Right now, the company I work for is talking about rebuilding 8 machines (which are pretty much exact duplicates of one another) - one a year - over an 8 year period.  Even though we'll have the same company come in and do the work, we'll end up with 8 very different machines - since the technology will change every year as the machines go in.

But will any of this new technology be used in any machines made by any other company? Or in any machines made by your company to do other things?

You are right that different designers can have different hierarchies - and so the superimposability will not match exactly.  Many manufacturers tend to stick with the same suppliers for quite some time however, and when they do, you can track the evolution of the various parts - right alongside the evolution of the machine's design.                      
Quote

Because in biology that is not the case. A new technology, say mammary glands, that is successful in one group of organisms is never picked up by another group, fish for example. You will never find a fern with flowers or a treefrog with dragonfly wings. The one exception is in some micro-organisms, in which the transfer of genetic material is well-established.
You will also never find a CD player with a microwave oven in it, or a dresser with a 357 chevy motor... but that's another argument.

A possible reason that the nested hierarchy in nature is more perfect than that of other designed objects is for the simple reason that nature might just be the result of a single designer.  

If every part of a machine was designed by a single designer who could not borrow from any other designs or consult with any other designers, but could only refine and build upon his own ideas, we'd see a set of completely superimposable hierarchies for all the various components of a machine and for the machine itself.

This is what we see in nature - correct?

You are right about biological lineages; they do not borrow from one another (although many arrive at similar places) - they do seem to proceed as though constrained along a certain path though.  Once they get lungs, they don't lose them.  They don't ever revert back to an earlier lung-less state.  Schindewolf made many arguments from the evidence in the fossil record for the irreversibility of evolution and for it's procession down a seemingly defined pathway.  Berg also showed that organisms seem to develop features as if by law - and not through the arbitrary process of minute variations and selection.

If the nested hierarchy proves anything, it proves that higher order taxonomic groups came first, then proceeded to differentiate into lower and lower orders until finally arriving at the species level.  If differentiation started at the species level (as Darwin predicted), the higher orders would come last because - at their root - they would be almost exactly alike.  So you'd have species gradually becoming genuses that would gradually become families, then orders,... etc., until the most recent organisms would define the domain.

This is why the fossil record does not match Darwin's illustration.  The fossil record (from what I've seen, if you remove all the dotted lines - which are theoretical organisms anyway), looks like a grove of bushes - not one single bush.  If you take Darwins illustration and cover up the bottom half, it will look much closer to the graph that creeky belly supplied earlier in this thread.

Let me ask you - and all the other members here:
Does the process of cell differentiation during ontogeny produce superimposable nested hierarchies?

Because I think that ontogeny is a perfect model of how directed evolution would unfurl.

Schindewolf and Davison also championed this view and it makes perfect sense - since it reconciles the rapid differentiation found at the beginning of the fossil record with the overall genetic continuity that flows throughout.

       
Quote

BTW, although fossils loom large in the general public's mind (and I include creationists and IDers here) as far as biologists are concerned they form a minor part of the evidence for the theory of evolution. This has been the case right from Origin of Species.

I'd guess that the fossil record would be a major part of the case for the theory of natural selection if it wasn't so ambiguous in its support of it.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,03:21   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 26 2007,09:44)


We don't have to wait to know that Denton's assertion is incorrect.

You seem to be saying that the rate of mutational change is the same for all species over time.  Is that correct?

But we know that bacteria, fruit flies and mice - due to their rapid reproduction rates - will have more mutational changes over time than animals with slower reproduction rates.  That's why we use them for such studies isn't it?

So how do you reconcile these two seemingly polar opposite realities?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,03:24   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 26 2007,06:24)
I'd like to hear about your commitments and community identifications, a description of the non-scientific allegiances from which your biases arise.

OK.

You first.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1357
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,04:44   

Hi Daniel

First, my apologies for being off-topic with my Dawkins quote. I originally only wanted to post the bit in bold:    
Quote
Even if there were not a single fossil anywhere in the earth, the evidence for evolution would still be utterly overwhelming.

as the (for instance) biochemical arguments for common descent are so convincing (to me, at least) and complementary to the fossil evidence, but the surrounding passage seemed quite apt.

You once asked me (of Berg's "Nomogenesis"): "Have you even read the book?" The answer is no. Neither have I read "Origin of Species". But I'll strike a bargain with you. I will get and read a copy of "Nomogenesis" if you will get and read a copy of "The Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins.

You wrote:    
Quote
A possible reason that the nested hierarchy in nature is more perfect than that of other designed objects is for the simple reason that nature might just be the result of a single designer.


Ignoring for the moment the implication in your remark that a nested hierarchy is an example of a designed object, you appear to suggest that evidence for common descent is also evidence for common design.

The most convincing evidence of common descent for me is at the sub-cellular level: all life-forms based on carbon chemistry, chirality, universal* genetic code, common metabolic pathways, etc,. etc., but I guess you will say this is evidence for a common designer. So finding and presenting evidence will be fruitless if you see design where others see common descent.

(*with a few significant exceptions)

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,05:30   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 25 2007,06:51)
But Daniel himself, per his own frank and repeated self-description, is operating from a decisive bias (one you appear to endorse), specifically that he prefers to learn from those who have been ignored, laughed at and shunned.

That's right.  I like scientists who are laughed at and shunned by the majority.  The majority are usually just empty headed sheep anyway. The majority just loves pablum.  Always has, always will.  They're the reason radio stations play the same songs over and over and over - they never want to hear new things.   They suck at the teet of mediocrity.

Me, I've always been this way.  When everyone was listening to ABBA, The Steve Miller Band, and all the other "happy, party, one-beat-fits-all" bands, I was listening to Black Sabbath - a band that cut against the grain and made people uncomfortable.  I liked that.  I was a social outcast and I liked it that way.  People who can't think for themselves gravitate towards the lowest common denominator.  They have to look around and see what everyone else is doing before they'll take a "stand" on anything.  They're afraid of being made fun of and they poke fun at anyone who doesn't "go along".  They're into whatever is "in" at the moment. I hate that.

I don't give a crap what any of you think of me either.  Laugh, shun - who cares.  I don't see any of you coming out with original ideas.  Most of you are probably committed atheists who need science to validate your belief system (or lack thereof).  You not only can't tolerate the thought of "a God", (oh my!), but you must make sure that science never reaches anything but atheistic conclusions.  So you laugh at and shun anyone who dares to bring a different interpretation to the evidence - any interpretation that makes you feel uncomfortable (weez), any interpretation that opens the door - even just a crack - to something remotely theistic.  No, anything like that  has to immediately be ridiculed.  Then you can all pat each other on the back and say "My don't we all think alike!".  It's sad because your minds are closed to anything new or different.  Majority rules!  Better stay safe - stick with whatever the MAJORITY says!

So, yeah, when the majority say one thing, I'm looking for a guy who's saying another.  Guys like Schindewolf, Berg, Davison, Bateson, Goldshmidt, Denton, Spetner - all of them.  These are guys who have the cahonas to take a real stand (without having to look around first).  

I don't think that's a bad way to be.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1357
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,05:41   

So, shall I cancel my order to Amazon, Daniel?

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,06:35   

Quote (JAM @ Sep. 26 2007,09:45)
   
Quote
 
Quote
you have the appealing quality of massive arrogance, made even more appealing by massive ignorance... so please save your lying for ignorant lay people.

Does that qualify?

No, because there's not a single name in there.

I guess - since you didn't actually call me an arrogant, ignorant liar, but only implied that I'm an arrogant, ignorant liar - technically I cannot say you called me names.

Please accept my sincerest apologies for accusing you of being a name-caller.  You're obviously only a name-implier.

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,06:38   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 27 2007,05:41)
So, shall I cancel my order to Amazon, Daniel?

Leo Berg was a biologist who traveled the world collecting samples and analyzing flora and fauna.  He then proposed his own theory of evolution based on his years of observations in the field.

What has Dawkins done?

--------------
"If we all worked on the assumption that what is accepted as true is really true, there would be little hope of advance."  Orville Wright

"The presence or absence of a creative super-intelligence is unequivocally a scientific question."  Richard Dawkins

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4222
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,06:52   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 27 2007,06:30)
...So, yeah, when the majority say one thing, I'm looking for a guy who's saying another...

I don't think that's a bad way to be.

You forgot one part:

1) You claim to be interested in evidence gathered free of bias and preconception.

But you are not. You said so before, and you just said so again. You said so loud and clear, undeniably, in statements interpretable by atheists, theists, deists, and fundamentalist Christians alike without the slightest ambiguity: You are committed to a particular, decisive bias motivated by very specific religious preconceptions.

Therefore it is time for you to retract your various statements of 1) above. They are demonstrably, even defiantly false.

BTW, your bias isn't subtle. Because science is essentially a distributed, community activity that is self-correcting by a combination of empirical and consensus-based feedback mechanisms (e.g. public hypothesis testing, peer review), your stance guarantees that you will adopt positions inconsistent with the most secure findings in any given science, and similarly ignore the most compelling evidence.

Thanks for being forthcoming. Take care of that little detail above, and you're done.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4222
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,07:10   

BTW, Daniel, A 2007 Gallup poll showed that as much as 66% of the US population believe "the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years," while another significant segment believe that God was involved in directing evolution or otherwise designing the current state of affairs. Only a minority of Americans (~20%, IIRC) understand and accept our current understanding of biological and human evolution (e.g. as a natural phenomenon), and just a tiny minority describe themselves as atheists.

Why doesn't your defiant nonconformity and disinterest in herd mentality result in your becoming an atheist who accepts evolution?

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,07:13   

there are examples of lineages that have gained and subsequently lost lungs.  you'll have to look them up.  i'll give you a hint...  nahhh, forget it.  tetrapod is all you get.

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

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

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

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,07:34   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Sep. 27 2007,07:10)
Why doesn't your defiant nonconformity and disinterest in herd mentality result in your becoming an atheist who accepts evolution?

This is an excellent point. What defines what "herd" you choose the opposite POV of Daniel?

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,08:34   

Saying you want to be like Bateson is kinda dumb.  Bateson completely misunderstood both Galton's theory (which he attempted to build upon) and the consequences of the discovery of mendelian heredity.  Goldschmidt misunderstood this as well.  Davison is a verified nutcase, there is nothing to see there (I love it so!).

The 'tree of life' is more likely a web.  Bush is perhaps a bit better, but the strict bifurcating model is a bit simplistic because we KNOW that lateral gene transfer is important, not only in bacteria world but in plants and animals (see sunflower example I provided, check out the 50 years of research on Louisana iris hybridization)

You can get out of actually reading any of this, just stop and think about what happens at any branch on the tree:  if lineages split automatically and completely (which they don't, Schindewolf and Bateson and the saltationists were mostly wrong), then you have a branch.  But if the bifurcation takes any amount of time whatsoever, in a sympatric or parapatric population with gene flow, then you have a reticulating pattern.  We know this happens because gene trees show coalescence when considering multiple markers.  We also know this happens from many many many studies in nature:  pay attention and stop whining about the democratic fallacy.  (See Grant and Grant Science 296 Apr 2002).

Trees are NOT THEORETICAL GODDAMMIT.  They are measured relationships from data.  Don't bog the discussion down with whether or not there are theory-free observations.  You have already stated your prediction from common design (lungfish more related to trout), and it is demonstrably wrong.  The burden is upon you to disprove our theory of heredity and to show how these gene trees are incorrect.  I predict you will start pissing and moaning about renegade crackpot biologists from the early 20th century.

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

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

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

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4377
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,09:04   

JAM:

Quote

Since the relationships between these sequences represent the overwhelming evidence favoring MET that make fossils unnecessary, it would be the inevitable prediction for someone who claimed an interest in evidence.


Daniel,

I think that your take was not analogous.

However, the point remains that you are interested in phenomena that fossil evidence doesn't provide a complete basis for making conclusions upon. Other forms of evidence, such as DNA sequencing and proteomics, provides evidence that does bear upon the phenomena of interest.

That remains the case no matter what you think of how that point was made.

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

    
Alan Fox



Posts: 1357
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 27 2007,11:25   

[quote=Daniel Smith,Sep. 27 2007,01:38][/quote]
Quote
What has Dawkins done?


I think it can be demonstrated that Dawkins had a respectable career as a research scientist (ethologist) before embarking on his current work as Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science. (Brief bio). However this is beside the point. It is irrelevant whether a particular person is a paragon of virtue or an utter rotter, it is the idea and whether that idea is based on correct observation, measurement and interpretation that is important. In "The Ancestor's Tale", Dawkins cites authors and evidence, and there is a comprehensive bibliography.

As far as I can tell, Leo Berg was a perfectly respectable and diligent scientist, but it makes no difference to the strength or weakness of his ideas. If you recall, this thread was originally intended for you to show how the evolution of the horse is a problem for the current theory of evolution. I have not seen a great deal of evidence from you, yet.

  
  1733 replies since Sep. 18 2007,15:27 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (58) < 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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