RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (37) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Daniel Smith's "Argument from Impossibility", in which assumptions are facts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,15:45   

(feel free to move this to the Bathroom Wall, but I hope it's specific enough to stand alone)

On his blog, Daniel Smith offered a tasty slice of arrogance.

I'd like to go through it point by point, to show that what Dan is doing is (quite dishonestly) presenting his assumptions as facts. His bar is so high because it is supported with lies.

However, his assumptions are testable predictions of a scientific "Hypothesis of Impossibility."

So, will Dan test his inadvertent hypotheses or simply assert that he is right? Or will he simply assert that we are bad?

Passing by his initial red herrings for the hypotheses, here goes...
Quote
In E. coli, (one of the simplest unicellular lifeforms on the planet), the amino acids aspartic acid, asparagine, lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine are synthesized from the compound oxaloacetate via a series of biochemical steps - each of which requires its own unique enzyme, (remember?).

No, Dan, I don't remember that.

The reality here is that your hypothesis simply predicts that each biochemical step REQUIRES its own UNIQUE enzyme.

Is this prediction empirically true? Please define "requires" and "unique" before responding, and when you respond, man up and cite DATA. No passing the buck with quotes.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,16:51   

Quote (JAM @ Jan. 26 2009,16:45)
(feel free to move this to the Bathroom Wall, but I hope it's specific enough to stand alone)

On his blog, Daniel Smith offered a tasty slice of arrogance.

I'd like to go through it point by point, to show that what Dan is doing is (quite dishonestly) presenting his assumptions as facts. His bar is so high because it is supported with lies.

However, his assumptions are testable predictions of a scientific "Hypothesis of Impossibility."

So, will Dan test his inadvertent hypotheses or simply assert that he is right? Or will he simply assert that we are bad?

Passing by his initial red herrings for the hypotheses, here goes...
 
Quote
In E. coli, (one of the simplest unicellular lifeforms on the planet), the amino acids aspartic acid, asparagine, lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine are synthesized from the compound oxaloacetate via a series of biochemical steps - each of which requires its own unique enzyme, (remember?).

No, Dan, I don't remember that.

The reality here is that your hypothesis simply predicts that each biochemical step REQUIRES its own UNIQUE enzyme.

Is this prediction empirically true? Please define "requires" and "unique" before responding, and when you respond, man up and cite DATA. No passing the buck with quotes.

After a long and tortuous discussion, Dan has unambiguously conceded that the predictions entailed in his "argument from impossibility" (predictions regarding necessary future failures of scientific efforts vis origins from within the framework of methodological naturalism) are not, and cannot be, scientific predictions.

To that extent he deserves credit.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,21:58   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 26 2009,16:51)
After a long and tortuous discussion, Dan has unambiguously conceded that the predictions entailed in his "argument from impossibility" (predictions regarding necessary future failures of scientific efforts vis origins from within the framework of methodological naturalism) are not, and cannot be, scientific predictions.

To that extent he deserves credit.

Bill,

I agree, but that's not my point, which is that he has accidentally specified predictions of a "hypothesis of impossibility," because his assumptions, which he falsely presented as facts, really are empirical predictions.

I'm not talking about his predictions of failure for others.

The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,22:13   

I think Daniel's restricted to the Bathroom Wall. I'm not sure. Ask Lou. If he is, he can't comment in this thread. FYI.

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2009,22:22   

Jam:
“The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions
of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.”

Jam, what do you get when you cross an onion with a donkey?
Well, most of the time you get little onions, but once in a
while you get a piece of ass soo good, it brings tears to your eyes.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,21:05   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Jan. 26 2009,22:22)
Jam:
“The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions
of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.”

Jam, what do you get when you cross an onion with a donkey?
Well, most of the time you get little onions, but once in a
while you get a piece of ass soo good, it brings tears to your eyes.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zero

"thy King cometh" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the event happens.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you have saved your own ass.


Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Eze 3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2009,21:37   

Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 07 2009,21:05)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Jan. 26 2009,22:22)
Jam:
“The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions
of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.”

Jam, what do you get when you cross an onion with a donkey?
Well, most of the time you get little onions, but once in a
while you get a piece of ass soo good, it brings tears to your eyes.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zero

"thy King cometh" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the event happens.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you have saved your own ass.


Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Eze 3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

"Cthulhu fhtagn" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the stars once again come into proper alignment.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you're in deep shit.

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,04:02   

Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 07 2009,21:37)
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 07 2009,21:05)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Jan. 26 2009,22:22)
Jam:
“The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions
of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.”

Jam, what do you get when you cross an onion with a donkey?
Well, most of the time you get little onions, but once in a
while you get a piece of ass soo good, it brings tears to your eyes.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zero

"thy King cometh" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the event happens.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you have saved your own ass.


Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Eze 3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

"Cthulhu fhtagn" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the stars once again come into proper alignment.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you're in deep shit.

On the other hand, "Hastur, Hastur, Hastur" can possibly be considered a practical experiment, albeit one that ends up similarily to your second point...:)

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
hereoisreal



Posts: 745
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,06:06   

Schroedinger's Dog:
>On the other hand, "Hastur, Hastur, Hastur" can possibly be considered a practical experiment, albeit one that ends up similarily to your second point...:) <

Hastur - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hastur (The Unspeakable One, Him Who Is Not to be Named, Assatur....)


Hey, you could be right!  

Ass/at/ur

See my last post on my thread, Zero res.

Feb. 07 2009,13:04

Similarily, yes.

Zero

--------------
360  miracles and more at:
http://www.hereoisreal.com/....eal.com

Great news. God’s wife is pregnant! (Rev. 12:5)

It's not over till the fat lady sings! (Isa. 54:1 & Zec 9:9)

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,07:06   

Yes, Daniel is restricted to the Wall at the moment. There may be some future effort to restrict a troll each to his own thread, but that's up to Wesley and his priority list.

I'm leaving the thread open for the moment, but if it begins to stray too far off topic (Daniel's nonsense), I'll lock it until the guest of honor arrives.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2009,15:45   

I don't think Daniel wants to leave the comfort of tile walls, ceramic appliances, and odor control wafers.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,19:24   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 12 2009,16:56)
                   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,17:51)
If I cross a red flower with a white flower, I may get a red flower, I may get a white flower, or I may - in some instances - get a pink flower.  Pink colored petals is a morphological feature not present in either parent.  Does this meet my challenge too?
My wife and I are both right-handed.  Our children are both left-handed.  Left-handedness is a morphological feature not present in both parents.  Does this also meet my challenge?
Your argument is so absurd, quite frankly I'm surprised that you are even putting it out there.
If this is the best you can do - you've lost.
I've admitted when I was wrong throughout this discussion.  This is not one of those times.  Maybe it's time for you to admit that you're wrong.

Daniel

Well, if you want to think that your red/white flower system meets your challenge, that's up to you. It's frankly idiotic, since we know that in most situations, if the pink  flower color is determined by a single pair of incompletely dominant alleles (as is the case in snapdragons), the F2 generation from a cross of pink x pink flowered F1 plants will yield some red and white flowers again. Simple Mendelian genetics; maybe you can read about it someday.

That is not the case with these new species of Tragopogon. The novel plants breed true; the flowers remain the same as in the F1 plants. It is a novel complex (and stable) morphogenetic system where we know the immediate precursors. It fulfills your criteria, you know it, and we all know it. In addition, it is an example of speciation within the past few decades.

Merely asserting that an argument is absurd is not an argument. You need to tell us why it is absurd, and so far you haven't managed to do that. All of your arguments have been shot down, and yet you still can't bring yourself to take that first toddler step toward scientific thinking and admit that you are wrong.

Albatrossity,

Let's take a look at this and see what we actually have here.

Polyploidy is common in the plant world:                  
Quote
Polyploidy is an important evolutionary force. Recent estimates suggest that 70% of all angiosperms have experienced one or more episodes of polyploidization. The frequency of polyploidy in pteridophytes could be as high as 95%

The polyploid production of these Tragopogon varieties is a repeatable and frequent occurence:                  
Quote
Tragopogon mirus Ownbey and T. miscellus Ownbey are allopolyploids that formed repeatedly during the past 80 years following the introduction of three diploids (T. dubius Scop., T. pratensis L. and T. porrifolius L.) from Europe to western North America.
                   
Quote
Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus, two allopolyploid species of goatsbeard, may have formed as many as 20 and 12 times, respectively, in eastern Washington and adjacent Idaho (USA) in only the past 60–70 years; multiple polyploidizations have even occurred within single small towns. Studies of recent allopolyploidy in Tragopogon indicate that multiple origins can occur frequently over a short timespan and in a small area.

In polyploid varieties, the genetic distance between parents determines the amount of change in the resultant progeny:                    
Quote
Therefore, Brassica provides two important suggestions regarding genomic change after polyploidization: (1) the more divergent the parents, the greater the subsequent genomic change in the polyploid; and (2) the nuclear genome of maternal origin experiences less change than the paternal contribution.
                 
Quote
Analyses of rDNA ITS (internal transcribed spacer) + ETS (external transcribed spacer) sequence data indicate that the parental diploids are phylogenetically well separated within Tragopogon (a genus of perhaps 150 species), in agreement with isozymic and cpDNA data.
link and link

So what we have here is the normal product of polyploid reproduction in plants that are hybridized from two distantly related parents.  It works like recombination only with two (or more) copies of the genome.

(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)

Now you want to suggest this as an answer to my challenge for a new biological system with known precursors.  OK, let's assume you're correct.  This is the evolution of an entirely new morphological feature in one step.  All the enzymes are pre-positioned and pre-regulated.  The biochemical pathways are functional and intact - in one step.  If this is evolution (and technically it is), it's much more like the saltational evolution predicted by Berg, Schindewolf, Davison, Goldshmidt et al, than that predicted by Darwin.  

In fact, the Soltis, Soltis paper on multiple origins reads a lot more like Berg's Nomogenesis, than Darwin's Origin:                  
Quote
From Nomogenesis:

"Evolution bears a sweeping character, and is not due to single, accidentally favourable variations." (pg. 400)  

"...evolution is... an unfolding or manifestation of pre-existing rudiments." (pg. 403)

"The evolutionary process should be imagined in the following manner. A considerable quantity... of primitive organisms have developed on parallel lines, convergently experiencing approximately the same transformations and effecting that process at various rates" (pg. 404)

"Species arising through mutations are sharply distinguished one from another." (pg. 406)

"...evolution was chiefly convergent (partly divergent)... based upon laws... affecting a vast number of individuals throughout an extensive territory... by leaps, paroxysms, mutations" (pg. 406)

It also presents strong evidence in favor of Goldschmidt's hypothesis that the unit of evolution is the chromosome rather than the gene.

It's also strangely reminiscent of prediction I made way back when...
       
Quote
Phylogenetic trees will produce results that will increasingly rely on gene swapping and other mechanisms that cause large scale genetic changes.
link

Are you sure you want to cite this example Albatrossity?

--------------
"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: Feb. 13 2009,19:31   

Quote (JAM @ Jan. 26 2009,13:45)
(feel free to move this to the Bathroom Wall, but I hope it's specific enough to stand alone)

On his blog, Daniel Smith offered a tasty slice of arrogance.

I'd like to go through it point by point, to show that what Dan is doing is (quite dishonestly) presenting his assumptions as facts. His bar is so high because it is supported with lies.

However, his assumptions are testable predictions of a scientific "Hypothesis of Impossibility."

So, will Dan test his inadvertent hypotheses or simply assert that he is right? Or will he simply assert that we are bad?

Passing by his initial red herrings for the hypotheses, here goes...
   
Quote
In E. coli, (one of the simplest unicellular lifeforms on the planet), the amino acids aspartic acid, asparagine, lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine are synthesized from the compound oxaloacetate via a series of biochemical steps - each of which requires its own unique enzyme, (remember?).

No, Dan, I don't remember that.

The reality here is that your hypothesis simply predicts that each biochemical step REQUIRES its own UNIQUE enzyme.

Is this prediction empirically true? Please define "requires" and "unique" before responding, and when you respond, man up and cite DATA. No passing the buck with quotes.

I got my information from my Biochemistry textbook JAM.  It states in the text that each step in this biochemical pathway is catalyzed by its own unique enzyme.  I used the term "requires" because the present system requires those enzymes to work.  If you're going to quibble about minutia, forget it.  You know what I mean, you're just being petty.

--------------
"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: Feb. 13 2009,19:40   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 13 2009,02:06)
Daniel, whether you have been less than respectful and polite or not towards RB, Louis and the rest here, maybe you should consider the fact that your entire approach, with lengthy quotes, sermons and some rather dubious/irrelevant statements are by themselves a gross insult that expose ignorance not only about evolution but also a confusion stemming from your expressed goal: To have your faith and religious beliefs confirmed.

If you had faith you would not need confirmation from science. something like 'Doubting Thomas' comes to mind.

You are reaching for the moon but it still is 300.000 km away.

Have you listened to suggestions about what you should read?

The first thing you should know and understand, if you want to  engage scientists in debate is to leave your god out of it. Is that too much to ask?

I know they couldn't care less, nor is it relevant. Nor are your motives, the only thing that counts is: Do you want to learn? Do you want to understand? You ought to know by now that you won't get the answer you desperately are seeking here.

You have been treated with much more respect and patience than I think you deserve, even more than you have shown yourself. Your entire collection of postings is an insult to science and its representatives.

See, all you ever might obtain is an understanding of what science knows, what it says - but that would not solve your problem.

As a Gnostic, I can only laugh at your problem, I don't even feel sorry for you. Humility is not one of your Christian virtues, is it? Reminds me of Ray Martinez. Had English been my language I might have taught you a real lesson.

But words are wasted on you.

In his preface to "The Wisdom of Insecurity" (1954), Alan Watts wrote:

   
Quote
This book is written in the spirit of the Chinese sage Lao-tzu, that master of the law of reversed effort, who declared
that those who justify themselves do not convince, that to know truth one must get rid of knowledge, and that nothing is more powerful and creative than emptiness - from which men shrink. Here, then, my aim is to show - backwards fashion - that those essential realities of religion and metaphysics are vindicated in doing without them, and manifest in being destroyed.

I'm not here to have my faith confirmed.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,19:47   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:40)
I'm not here to have my faith confirmed.

Anything contrary to your idiosyncratic notions of faith = dismissed in whatever way you deem necessary, no matter how illogical or fallacious those dismissals may be.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 13 2009,20:27   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:24)
Albatrossity,

Let's take a look at this and see what we actually have here.

Polyploidy is common in the plant world:                        
Quote
Polyploidy is an important evolutionary force. Recent estimates suggest that 70% of all angiosperms have experienced one or more episodes of polyploidization. The frequency of polyploidy in pteridophytes could be as high as 95%

The polyploid production of these Tragopogon varieties is a repeatable and frequent occurence:                        
Quote
Tragopogon mirus Ownbey and T. miscellus Ownbey are allopolyploids that formed repeatedly during the past 80 years following the introduction of three diploids (T. dubius Scop., T. pratensis L. and T. porrifolius L.) from Europe to western North America.
                         
Quote
Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus, two allopolyploid species of goatsbeard, may have formed as many as 20 and 12 times, respectively, in eastern Washington and adjacent Idaho (USA) in only the past 60–70 years; multiple polyploidizations have even occurred within single small towns. Studies of recent allopolyploidy in Tragopogon indicate that multiple origins can occur frequently over a short timespan and in a small area.

In polyploid varieties, the genetic distance between parents determines the amount of change in the resultant progeny:                          
Quote
Therefore, Brassica provides two important suggestions regarding genomic change after polyploidization: (1) the more divergent the parents, the greater the subsequent genomic change in the polyploid; and (2) the nuclear genome of maternal origin experiences less change than the paternal contribution.
                       
Quote
Analyses of rDNA ITS (internal transcribed spacer) + ETS (external transcribed spacer) sequence data indicate that the parental diploids are phylogenetically well separated within Tragopogon (a genus of perhaps 150 species), in agreement with isozymic and cpDNA data.
link and link

So what we have here is the normal product of polyploid reproduction in plants that are hybridized from two distantly related parents.  It works like recombination only with two (or more) copies of the genome.

(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)

Now you want to suggest this as an answer to my challenge for a new biological system with known precursors.  OK, let's assume you're correct.  This is the evolution of an entirely new morphological feature in one step.  All the enzymes are pre-positioned and pre-regulated.  The biochemical pathways are functional and intact - in one step.  If this is evolution (and technically it is), it's much more like the saltational evolution predicted by Berg, Schindewolf, Davison, Goldshmidt et al, than that predicted by Darwin.  

In fact, the Soltis, Soltis paper on multiple origins reads a lot more like Berg's Nomogenesis, than Darwin's Origin:                        
Quote
From Nomogenesis:

"Evolution bears a sweeping character, and is not due to single, accidentally favourable variations." (pg. 400)  

"...evolution is... an unfolding or manifestation of pre-existing rudiments." (pg. 403)

"The evolutionary process should be imagined in the following manner. A considerable quantity... of primitive organisms have developed on parallel lines, convergently experiencing approximately the same transformations and effecting that process at various rates" (pg. 404)

"Species arising through mutations are sharply distinguished one from another." (pg. 406)

"...evolution was chiefly convergent (partly divergent)... based upon laws... affecting a vast number of individuals throughout an extensive territory... by leaps, paroxysms, mutations" (pg. 406)

It also presents strong evidence in favor of Goldschmidt's hypothesis that the unit of evolution is the chromosome rather than the gene.

It's also strangely reminiscent of prediction I made way back when...
             
Quote
Phylogenetic trees will produce results that will increasingly rely on gene swapping and other mechanisms that cause large scale genetic changes.
link

Are you sure you want to cite this example Albatrossity?

Quit handwaving.

The fact that this is "normal", or "common" is an argument for my side. You are the fellow who claims that there are no examples of complex systems for which we know the immediate precursors. The fact that there are lots of them, including this one, is NOT an argument in your favor in any rational universe.

So, yeah, I'm sure that I want to cite this example, or any of a few dozen other examples, because it proves my point, rather than yours.

I assume, from your convoluted yet totally irrelevant comment, that you finally agree that this is an actual example of a complex system for which we know the immediate precursors.

If so, thanks for playing.  If not, tell me your latest argument for why this is not the case.

eta - First rule of holes: When you are in one, stop digging. When will Daniel stop digging?  When will he understand the contradiction in simultaneously asserting that this example is something that he claims never happens, and yet it is also cleverly predicted by the theories of his scientific heroes? The mental contortions engendered by a conclusion-first approach to science will never cease to amuse me!

eta II - Daniel, do you understand that you were hilariously wrong when you said that this was an example of "recombination"? Will you admit that you were wrong? Or were you hoping I would forget that great moment in the history of hubris?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,09:39   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:40)
I'm not here to have my faith confirmed.

Allright, I got it wrong then? I borrow from Pauli:"Your ideas are so confused I cannot tell whether they are nonsense or not."

In any case, you have written so much that you have made me confused.

If it is not too much to ask, what exactly is it that you hope to achieve here?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,13:36   

Quote
(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)


ORLY, pompous ass?

undefined by you?  very likely.

undefined by the biologist community at large?  Wrong.

user defined?  perhaps.  the fact that there are no sharp clean boundaries in nature doesn't argue for your position, fool.  It destroys it.

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

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

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

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,14:10   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 14 2009,11:36)
Quote
(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)


ORLY, pompous ass?

undefined by you?  very likely.

undefined by the biologist community at large?  Wrong.

user defined?  perhaps.  the fact that there are no sharp clean boundaries in nature doesn't argue for your position, fool.  It destroys it.

So what is the currently accepted definition?

--------------
"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: Feb. 14 2009,14:12   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 13 2009,18:27)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:24)
Albatrossity,

Let's take a look at this and see what we actually have here.

Polyploidy is common in the plant world:                          
Quote
Polyploidy is an important evolutionary force. Recent estimates suggest that 70% of all angiosperms have experienced one or more episodes of polyploidization. The frequency of polyploidy in pteridophytes could be as high as 95%

The polyploid production of these Tragopogon varieties is a repeatable and frequent occurence:                          
Quote
Tragopogon mirus Ownbey and T. miscellus Ownbey are allopolyploids that formed repeatedly during the past 80 years following the introduction of three diploids (T. dubius Scop., T. pratensis L. and T. porrifolius L.) from Europe to western North America.
                         
Quote
Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus, two allopolyploid species of goatsbeard, may have formed as many as 20 and 12 times, respectively, in eastern Washington and adjacent Idaho (USA) in only the past 60–70 years; multiple polyploidizations have even occurred within single small towns. Studies of recent allopolyploidy in Tragopogon indicate that multiple origins can occur frequently over a short timespan and in a small area.

In polyploid varieties, the genetic distance between parents determines the amount of change in the resultant progeny:                          
Quote
Therefore, Brassica provides two important suggestions regarding genomic change after polyploidization: (1) the more divergent the parents, the greater the subsequent genomic change in the polyploid; and (2) the nuclear genome of maternal origin experiences less change than the paternal contribution.
                         
Quote
Analyses of rDNA ITS (internal transcribed spacer) + ETS (external transcribed spacer) sequence data indicate that the parental diploids are phylogenetically well separated within Tragopogon (a genus of perhaps 150 species), in agreement with isozymic and cpDNA data.
link and link

So what we have here is the normal product of polyploid reproduction in plants that are hybridized from two distantly related parents.  It works like recombination only with two (or more) copies of the genome.

(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)

Now you want to suggest this as an answer to my challenge for a new biological system with known precursors.  OK, let's assume you're correct.  This is the evolution of an entirely new morphological feature in one step.  All the enzymes are pre-positioned and pre-regulated.  The biochemical pathways are functional and intact - in one step.  If this is evolution (and technically it is), it's much more like the saltational evolution predicted by Berg, Schindewolf, Davison, Goldshmidt et al, than that predicted by Darwin.  

In fact, the Soltis, Soltis paper on multiple origins reads a lot more like Berg's Nomogenesis, than Darwin's Origin:                          
Quote
From Nomogenesis:

"Evolution bears a sweeping character, and is not due to single, accidentally favourable variations." (pg. 400)  

"...evolution is... an unfolding or manifestation of pre-existing rudiments." (pg. 403)

"The evolutionary process should be imagined in the following manner. A considerable quantity... of primitive organisms have developed on parallel lines, convergently experiencing approximately the same transformations and effecting that process at various rates" (pg. 404)

"Species arising through mutations are sharply distinguished one from another." (pg. 406)

"...evolution was chiefly convergent (partly divergent)... based upon laws... affecting a vast number of individuals throughout an extensive territory... by leaps, paroxysms, mutations" (pg. 406)

It also presents strong evidence in favor of Goldschmidt's hypothesis that the unit of evolution is the chromosome rather than the gene.

It's also strangely reminiscent of prediction I made way back when...
               
Quote
Phylogenetic trees will produce results that will increasingly rely on gene swapping and other mechanisms that cause large scale genetic changes.
link

Are you sure you want to cite this example Albatrossity?

Quit handwaving.

The fact that this is "normal", or "common" is an argument for my side. You are the fellow who claims that there are no examples of complex systems for which we know the immediate precursors. The fact that there are lots of them, including this one, is NOT an argument in your favor in any rational universe.

So, yeah, I'm sure that I want to cite this example, or any of a few dozen other examples, because it proves my point, rather than yours.

I assume, from your convoluted yet totally irrelevant comment, that you finally agree that this is an actual example of a complex system for which we know the immediate precursors.

If so, thanks for playing.  If not, tell me your latest argument for why this is not the case.

eta - First rule of holes: When you are in one, stop digging. When will Daniel stop digging?  When will he understand the contradiction in simultaneously asserting that this example is something that he claims never happens, and yet it is also cleverly predicted by the theories of his scientific heroes? The mental contortions engendered by a conclusion-first approach to science will never cease to amuse me!

eta II - Daniel, do you understand that you were hilariously wrong when you said that this was an example of "recombination"? Will you admit that you were wrong? Or were you hoping I would forget that great moment in the history of hubris?

So what is the mechanism by which this evolution (of a new morphological feature in one step) was accomplished?

--------------
"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: Feb. 14 2009,14:14   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 14 2009,07:39)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:40)
I'm not here to have my faith confirmed.

Allright, I got it wrong then? I borrow from Pauli:"Your ideas are so confused I cannot tell whether they are nonsense or not."

In any case, you have written so much that you have made me confused.

If it is not too much to ask, what exactly is it that you hope to achieve here?

I've said it several times:  I came here to challenge and to be challenged.

I'm finding that most of you don't like to be challenged though.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,15:15   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,14:12)
So what is the mechanism by which this evolution (of a new morphological feature in one step) was accomplished?

You tell me, recombination-boy. You're the one that says Berg and Schindewolf and all those other fellows discussed this ad nauseam. What's the matter, did you run out of hubris?

PS - I notice you won't admit you were wrong, you just keep on stringing this out with new questions and the pretense that you "like to be challenged".

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,15:44   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,20:14)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 14 2009,07:39)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:40)
I'm not here to have my faith confirmed.

Allright, I got it wrong then? I borrow from Pauli:"Your ideas are so confused I cannot tell whether they are nonsense or not."

In any case, you have written so much that you have made me confused.

If it is not too much to ask, what exactly is it that you hope to achieve here?

I've said it several times:  I came here to challenge and to be challenged.

I'm finding that most of you don't like to be challenged though.

Intelligent, well informed, good faith, intellectually honest challenge is welcomed.

Pig ignorant, pseudo-profound, nonsensical, arrogantly stupid, bad faith, intellectually dishonest challenge is not welcomed.

Spot the difference.

Quote
“They laughed at Galileo. They laughed at Newton. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.” Carl Sagan


Hint: you aren't Galileo or Newton, you're the other one.

You clearly haven't come here to be challenged because when your drivel is exposed you habitually to retreat to unreasonable positions like "I personally don't find X convincing!" (appeal to personal incredulity) and "But it's all so complicated!" (appeal to prejudice/mystery). Desire to be challenged requires effort to effect that challenge. Effort that has been suggested you put in (yet seem suspiciously unwilling to do). Do you really expect that everyone here should act as personal tutor to you? And don't complain that you have admitted when you are wrong, you've made grudging admissions and then merely repeated your original erroneous claims.

Let's be blunt Denial. The reason you are here is to try to gainsay someone you consider to be on the "opposite team" in order to receive a feeling of validation for yourself and your views. You've been sold a line about evolution contradicting your faith and so you've set out to slay the dragon. Unfortunately you've set out unarmed.

Another one for you:

Quote
"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them." Thomas Jefferson


Science: Ur not doin it at all, Denial.

Take the hint, get some minimal education in a subject BEFORE you bloviate about it. It will a) help you and b) help any interaction you have with anyone. I may have mentioned before that your ignorance doesn't equate to someone else's knowledge. I know you don't like this, and consider it talking down to you, but it's something ALL of us have to do, you're not special.

Louis

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,16:08   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,14:12)
So what is the mechanism by which this evolution (of a new morphological feature in one step) was accomplished?

Er,

God did it?

Oh, right, sorry.....

--------------
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: Feb. 14 2009,16:16   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,14:10)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 14 2009,11:36)
Quote
(BTW, the term "speciation" is a term largely without meaning - since the term "species" is essentially undefined.)


ORLY, pompous ass?

undefined by you?  very likely.

undefined by the biologist community at large?  Wrong.

user defined?  perhaps.  the fact that there are no sharp clean boundaries in nature doesn't argue for your position, fool.  It destroys it.

So what is the currently accepted definition?

currently accepted by who?

bacteriologists?

mammalogists?

botanists?

entomologists?

why don't we, for the sake of this discussion (if that is truly what it is, and I have my doubts), just use the biological species concept definition.  

let us consider reproductive isolation as the criterion for where species demarcation begins and ends.  

let us leave aside stupid notions like "I am reproductively isolated from Inuits because I find them unattractive".  I'll give you a bonus point if you know which IDCist has used this argument, just for shits and giggles.  It'll show you have been paying attention.  No using teh google.

in the case of Albie's example, we have instantaneous reproductive isolation that is accompanied by major shifts in flower morphology.    in other words, it fits the criteria you demanded.

Do you understand that asking for an atom-by-atom account for the change in the molecular pathways that determine flower structure is simply moving the goalposts?

Do you understand that these examples are rare in the animal world and not-so-rare in the plant world (in other words, it doesn't support the argument for saltational evolution you claim that it does)?

Do you understand Zeno's Paradox, the misunderstanding of which  allows you to claim any event as a saltational event no matter what sort of historical or biological processes were in play?  For a hint, note that one polyploid is going to die where it grows.

Did you read the citation I posted yesterday about reproductive isolation due to Dobzhansky-Mueller effects in duplicate gene complexes within the model system Arabidopsis?  Again, this speaks directly to your misunderstandings.

I'm with Loose.  there is no point in attempting to hold your hand through this because you often give the impression of a petulant child, laying down in the floor and saying "No!".  The simple fact is that in all probable estimations, you are wrong.  You have been misled.  When you claim conspiracies and godless blinders, everyone is going to tell you to Fuck Off.  I have, and I will.  Because that nonsense is trite and tiresome.  Read the damn books, son.

Especially get a copy of the Mike Arnold book I posted, that is, if you really give a shit about any of this.

--------------
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: Feb. 14 2009,16:46   

This is interesting too
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species
 
Quote
In biology, a ring species is a connected series of neighboring populations that can interbreed with relatively closely related populations, but for which there exist at least two "end" populations in the series that are too distantly related to interbreed. Often such non-breeding-though-genetically-connected populations co-exist in the same region thus creating a "ring". Ring species provide important evidence of evolution in that they illustrate what happens over time as populations genetically diverge, and are special because they represent in living populations what normally happens over time between long deceased ancestor populations and living populations.

Ring species also present an interesting problem for those who seek to divide the living world into discrete species, as well as for those who believe that evolution does not create new species. After all, all that distinguishes a ring species from two separate species is the existence of the connecting populations - if enough of the connecting populations within the ring perish to sever the breeding connection, the ring species becomes two distinct species.


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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,19:24   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,13:15)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,14:12)
So what is the mechanism by which this evolution (of a new morphological feature in one step) was accomplished?

You tell me, recombination-boy. You're the one that says Berg and Schindewolf and all those other fellows discussed this ad nauseam. What's the matter, did you run out of hubris?

PS - I notice you won't admit you were wrong, you just keep on stringing this out with new questions and the pretense that you "like to be challenged".

As near as I can tell, the evolution of this new feature began when there was some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polyploidy.  As you know however, that's just the beginning.  I don't know the exact genetic rearrangements, nor do I know which genes were expressed and why, nor do I know the makeup of the genes and the epigenetic factors involved in the production of the new feature, nor any of the metabolic factors involved, the biochemical pathways, their enzymes and their regulation.  I know none of this.  I know one thing however - all of this worked itself out in one single evolutionary step.  That's a lot!  The fact that this is a repeatable phenomenon where the above factors work themselves out every time leads me to believe that this is a either a normal reproductive event for plants, or, an evolutionary event with no random element whatsoever.  Care to choose?

I called it "recombination" but I was wrong.  I should have likened it to recombination - since it works in a similar manner - except for the number of chromosomes.  

This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think?  A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.  So, do you think evolution normally works this way?  It sure seems a lot more like the "unfolding of pre-existing rudiments" than "selection acting on random variation" - wouldn't you say?

(Now which part of this will you snip and ignore?)

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,19:24   

As god-less evil scientists, why can't we just improve the world by breeding Daniel with his soul-mate RFJE, and just have ONE wierd rambling non-responsive thread?

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

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,19:42   

Quote (J-Dog @ Feb. 14 2009,20:24)
As god-less evil scientists, why can't we just improve the world by breeding Daniel with his soul-mate RFJE, and just have ONE wierd rambling non-responsive thread?

Will combining two halfwits yield a whole wit?

Or a quarter wit?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,19:53   

As I look at Danny's new avatar, I have to wonder if he's bumped into AFDave lately.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,20:13   

Lest we forget:
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,19:07)
Bill, I'll admit that I'm prejudiced when it comes to human ancestry.  I don't want us to be descended from apes, so I need extra convincing when it comes to that.  It's my bias.  I'm not sure how we fit into the picture re: evolution.  I'd like to believe we are a special creation of God, but I'm not wed to the idea.

Wishing something not to be true is NOT a basis for concluding that it is not true, or even unlikely to be true. I gather from your response that you have no basis for doubting that human beings and other great apes share a common ancestor other than your wishes and biases. The science is absolutely clear, however: human beings share common ancestry with the great apes (most recently with chimps and bonobos).
               
Quote
As for your other questions:  Common ancestry is compatible with front-loaded evolution.

My point is that front-loading is irrelevant to the emergence of humanity IF human beings did not descend from SOME ancestor species or other.
                   
Quote
As for the "immediate precursor", I don't think you understand what I mean by that.  I'm asking for the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them.

I don't think you understand what you have already conceded. If you agree that there is no basis for reasonable doubt that bonobos and chimpanzees (which surely themselves meet the definition of "complex biological systems") share a common ancestor, then you are stating that there is no reasonable doubt that a) there was such a precursor, and b) both populations progressed from that ancestral form to the organisms we see today by means of an unbroken succession of individuals reproducing over the intervening 2.5 million years, culminating in the organisms we know today.
           
Quote
 It's not enough to just point to something and say that it's the immediate precursor.  The two must be connected by a real pathway.

Not enough for what? Your statement that there can be no reasonable doubt of chimp-bonobo common ancestry does all the work that needs to be done. You've already conceded everything important in this discussion, as above. Of course we would like to know more about both that precursor and those intermediates, but the soundness of this inference (of precursor and intermediates progressing to the systems we observe today) depends in no way upon those additional findings.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,20:14   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,19:24)
As near as I can tell, the evolution of this new feature began when there was some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polyploidy.  As you know however, that's just the beginning.  I don't know the exact genetic rearrangements, nor do I know which genes were expressed and why, nor do I know the makeup of the genes and the epigenetic factors involved in the production of the new feature, nor any of the metabolic factors involved, the biochemical pathways, their enzymes and their regulation.  I know none of this.  I know one thing however - all of this worked itself out in one single evolutionary step.  That's a lot!  The fact that this is a repeatable phenomenon where the above factors work themselves out every time leads me to believe that this is a either a normal reproductive event for plants, or, an evolutionary event with no random element whatsoever.  Care to choose?

I called it "recombination" but I was wrong.  I should have likened it to recombination - since it works in a similar manner - except for the number of chromosomes.  

This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think?  A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.  So, do you think evolution normally works this way?  It sure seems a lot more like the "unfolding of pre-existing rudiments" than "selection acting on random variation" - wouldn't you say?

(Now which part of this will you snip and ignore?)

I won't snip and ignore any of it except for the irrelevant bits. Which would be almost all of it.

Your challenge was to show you a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known. I did that. Note that this challenge does not include any stipulations about mechanism, so I will ignore that. Nor did you stipulate if this had to be "normal", or "common", so I can ignore that. Nor did you say that I had to prove that "evolution normally works that way", or not. You asked for a single example; that is the goal post we should be concentrating on. Why don't you try harder to do that?

Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy". if you actually understood any biology, you would be able to deduce that from the reading. Since you know absolutely no biology, you are pulling (again) strawmen out of your rectum.

So, back to the original question which you are avoiding.

Please tell me WHY this is not an example of a novel biological system where we know the immediate precursors. Don't hand-wave about mechanisms, or hormalcy, or repeatability, or any of those other idiotic parameters that you have erected post facto. Tell me WHY this is not an answer to your challenge.

If you can't do that, perhaps you should just shut up about it.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 14 2009,20:43   

man this is one dense dude.  almost as if by design.  who are you anyway, Denial?  you have an essence of old-school troll about you.  

anyway...

Denial, speciation by ploidy is a lot more common in plants than in animals.  it's not unknown in animals but it is apparently much less frequent.

none of that is rescuing you from your demand that we demonstrate a complex biological system and the precursors.  the frequency of speciation by ploidy is irrelevant.  and a fascinating subject but you are apparently too willfully self-deluded to investigate.  cest' la tard.

no random element whatosever?  well fuck me.  

i suppose you know exactly what causes this sort of event in plants then.  because, to the rest of us that don't have God Shades 2.0 or Satan Blockers or whatever lens you are privy to that the entirety of modern biological investigation is lacking, it sure as hell seems to be random.  

it may be more prevalent in certain phylogenetic groups but that's not helping you any here, we have theoretical explanations for that that have an evolutionary basis and not anything based on your misunderstanding or mangling of Schindewolf et al

I'm not helping you out here on that one, until you drop this stupid goal post moving game and start acting like a man and admit that your demand has been met.  i've got a bagful of these examples, O Petulant One, but I'm going to enjoy slapping you with them one at a time.  and I'm not done with this one yet.  what makes this non-random?

--------------
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: Feb. 15 2009,05:04   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,19:24)
(Now which part of this will you snip and ignore?)

Lets face it, the entire post is you saying what you don't know.

It could have gone on for alot longer then that, no?

Congratulations for keeping it so short.

So, Daniel, the evolution of the ability to digest Citrate in the Lenski study appears to answer your challenge.

Are you so afraid of being wrong that you can't say why it does not?

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

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,06:46   

Just to recap:
     
Quote
Daniel: Show me a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.
<subtext> Ha, he won't be able to do that, because it's impossible for a novel biological system to evolve (without woo woo from God)</subtext>

Albatrossity: Here's your example of a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.
<subtext>Take that, moron*</subtext>

Daniel: No, that can't be an example of an evolved novel biological system because it's impossible for a novel biological system to evolve. So it isn't a novel biological system and the evolutionary event leading to this novel biological system happens so frequently that it can't be an evolutionary event, so it's either normal reproduction or made by God!!!1!!11

That's really brilliant reasoning right there, congrats.
Oh and BTW:
         
Quote
This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think?  A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.  


You are aware that if the the "biochemical processes" weren't working properly in the new species there wouldn't be any new species, aren't you. It might be a novel concept to you, but there is this thing that is called "natural selection". It just means that any new variants in which the biochemical processes weren't working properly WOULDN'T SURVIVE (long enough to produce offspring)**.



* Sorry, if I assumed wrongly that you thought something like that. Couldn't resist.

** or be sterile or produce significantly less offspring than the parent species, ALL of which probably happened and happens way more often than that it works out.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,08:34   

Quote (JLT @ Feb. 15 2009,06:46)
Just to recap:
         
Quote
Daniel: Show me a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.
<subtext> Ha, he won't be able to do that, because it's impossible for a novel biological system to evolve (without woo woo from God)</subtext>

Albatrossity: Here's your example of a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.
<subtext>Take that, moron*</subtext>

Daniel: No, that can't be an example of an evolved novel biological system because it's impossible for a novel biological system to evolve. So it isn't a novel biological system and the evolutionary event leading to this novel biological system happens so frequently that it can't be an evolutionary event, so it's either normal reproduction or made by God!!!1!!11

That's really brilliant reasoning right there, congrats.
Oh and BTW:
             
Quote
This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think?  A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.  


You are aware that if the the "biochemical processes" weren't working properly in the new species there wouldn't be any new species, aren't you. It might be a novel concept to you, but there is this thing that is called "natural selection". It just means that any new variants in which the biochemical processes weren't working properly WOULDN'T SURVIVE (long enough to produce offspring)**.



* Sorry, if I assumed wrongly that you thought something like that. Couldn't resist.

** or be sterile or produce significantly less offspring than the parent species, ALL of which probably happened and happens way more often than that it works out.

No, that works for me.

Just another example of conclusion-first reasoning on Daniel's part - "there are no examples like the one I am demanding because it is impossible for those examples to exist in the tiny basement where my imagination lives". Conclusion-first reasoners will always have to go to great lengths to deny or ignore actual evidence that deflates their conclusions.

And, along with OldMan's citrate example, as erasmus said, there are plenty of examples in the plant world that Daniel still hasn't heard about. This could go on for a while if he wants to continue to get kicked around here.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,08:38   

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

This is the way we do some science,
Do some science, do some science.
This is the way we do some science,
So early Monday morning.

This is when Dan denies the facts,
Denies the facts, denies the facts.
This is when Dan denies the facts,
So early Tuesday morning.

This is how flowers evolve new things,
Evolve new things, evolve new things.
This is how flowers evolve new things,
So early Wednesday morning.

This is when Dan tries ignorance,
Ignorance, ignorance.
This is when Dan tries ignorance,
So early Thursday morning.

Here are some citrate eating bugs,
Eating bugs, eating bugs.
Here are some citrate eating bugs,
So early Friday morning.

This is when Dan appeals to faith,
Appeals to faith, appeals to faith.
This is when Dan appeals to faith,
So early Saturday morning.

This is the way we get pissed off,
Get pissed off, get pissed off.
This is the way we get pissed off,
So early Sunday morning.


With apologies to scansion, verse, doggerel and poetry everywhere

Louis

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,10:05   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2009,15:38)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

This is the way we do some science,
Do some science, do some science.
This is the way we do some science,
So early Monday morning.

This is when Dan denies the facts,
Denies the facts, denies the facts.
This is when Dan denies the facts,
So early Tuesday morning.

This is how flowers evolve new things,
Evolve new things, evolve new things.
This is how flowers evolve new things,
So early Wednesday morning.

This is when Dan tries ignorance,
Ignorance, ignorance.
This is when Dan tries ignorance,
So early Thursday morning.

Here are some citrate eating bugs,
Eating bugs, eating bugs.
Here are some citrate eating bugs,
So early Friday morning.

This is when Dan appeals to faith,
Appeals to faith, appeals to faith.
This is when Dan appeals to faith,
So early Saturday morning.

This is the way we get pissed off,
Get pissed off, get pissed off.
This is the way we get pissed off,
So early Sunday morning.


With apologies to scansion, verse, doggerel and poetry everywhere

Louis

Beautiful, just beautiful! *dabs eyes*

But we don't care 'cos Dan's at church,
Dan's at church, Dan's at church.
But we don't care 'cos Dan's at church,
So early Sunday morning.


Sorry, I had to bring that verse...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,10:13   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 15 2009,16:05)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2009,15:38)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

This is the way we do some science,
Do some science, do some science.
This is the way we do some science,
So early Monday morning.

This is when Dan denies the facts,
Denies the facts, denies the facts.
This is when Dan denies the facts,
So early Tuesday morning.

This is how flowers evolve new things,
Evolve new things, evolve new things.
This is how flowers evolve new things,
So early Wednesday morning.

This is when Dan tries ignorance,
Ignorance, ignorance.
This is when Dan tries ignorance,
So early Thursday morning.

Here are some citrate eating bugs,
Eating bugs, eating bugs.
Here are some citrate eating bugs,
So early Friday morning.

This is when Dan appeals to faith,
Appeals to faith, appeals to faith.
This is when Dan appeals to faith,
So early Saturday morning.

This is the way we get pissed off,
Get pissed off, get pissed off.
This is the way we get pissed off,
So early Sunday morning.


With apologies to scansion, verse, doggerel and poetry everywhere

Louis

Beautiful, just beautiful! *dabs eyes*

But we don't care 'cos Dan's at church,
Dan's at church, Dan's at church.
But we don't care 'cos Dan's at church,
So early Sunday morning.


Sorry, I had to bring that verse...

Nice!

I avoided bringing in "church" in the last verse, deliberately removing it in fact. Denial's church attendance is almost irrelevant. What isn't irrelevant is how Denial defends what he learns at church: appeals to prejudice, personal incredulity, common prejudice, ignorance, mystery etc. It's the same shit, just a different day.

Louis

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,10:25   

I would probably have avoided the allusion as well, but the simple fact that his ideas and reactions here come from "church", it somewhat becomes relevant, at least I think.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,11:23   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 15 2009,16:25)
I would probably have avoided the allusion as well, but the simple fact that his ideas and reactions here come from "church", it somewhat becomes relevant, at least I think.

I would agree, but church attendance is a necessary, not sufficient, prerequisite. ;-)

Louis

P.S. I think this is rather relevant to Denial's issues.

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

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,18:44   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Feb. 14 2009,17:53)
As I look at Danny's new avatar, I have to wonder if he's bumped into AFDave lately.

HA HA THIS IS DANIEL:



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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,19:11   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,19:24)
As near as I can tell, the evolution of this new feature began when there was some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polyploidy.  As you know however, that's just the beginning.  I don't know the exact genetic rearrangements, nor do I know which genes were expressed and why, nor do I know the makeup of the genes and the epigenetic factors involved in the production of the new feature, nor any of the metabolic factors involved, the biochemical pathways, their enzymes and their regulation.  I know none of this.  I know one thing however - all of this worked itself out in one single evolutionary step.  That's a lot!  The fact that this is a repeatable phenomenon where the above factors work themselves out every time leads me to believe that this is a either a normal reproductive event for plants, or, an evolutionary event with no random element whatsoever.  Care to choose?

I called it "recombination" but I was wrong.  I should have likened it to recombination - since it works in a similar manner - except for the number of chromosomes.  

This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think?  A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.  So, do you think evolution normally works this way?  It sure seems a lot more like the "unfolding of pre-existing rudiments" than "selection acting on random variation" - wouldn't you say?

(Now which part of this will you snip and ignore?)

I won't snip and ignore any of it except for the irrelevant bits. Which would be almost all of it.

Your challenge was to show you a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known. I did that. Note that this challenge does not include any stipulations about mechanism, so I will ignore that. Nor did you stipulate if this had to be "normal", or "common", so I can ignore that. Nor did you say that I had to prove that "evolution normally works that way", or not. You asked for a single example; that is the goal post we should be concentrating on. Why don't you try harder to do that?

Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy". if you actually understood any biology, you would be able to deduce that from the reading. Since you know absolutely no biology, you are pulling (again) strawmen out of your rectum.

So, back to the original question which you are avoiding.

Please tell me WHY this is not an example of a novel biological system where we know the immediate precursors. Don't hand-wave about mechanisms, or hormalcy, or repeatability, or any of those other idiotic parameters that you have erected post facto. Tell me WHY this is not an answer to your challenge.

If you can't do that, perhaps you should just shut up about it.

It is a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.  If that's all you want from me, then there it is.  If you read back through my posts however, I never said that it wasn't.  What I was disputing was whether this novel feature was a normal result of plant crosses or if it was the "evolution" of a new feature.  I was not disputing the "novelness" of the feature, nor was I disputing the fact that the parents are known, I was only concerned with the mechanisms by which such novel features are born.  You don't want to discuss mechanisms or anything else related to this.  All you want to do is say you met one of my challenges.  Well hooray for you!  You met one of my challenges.  (Don't stop reading here or snip the rest!)  If you remember though, the specific challenge involved an evolutionary pathway for a novel biological feature.  The challenge was to find the immediate precursor, then go back one more step - so that we can build an agreed upon evolutionary pathway.  The challenge assumed there would be many steps.  You all whined endlessly about how it would be impossible to retrace the specific steps for the evolution of a new feature because it takes millions of years, involves countless mutations, and other assorted excuses.  Now you cite an example that requires only one step!  Geez.  I guess evolutionary pathways are remarkably easy to trace after all!  You guys should be able to knock out the E. coli aminosynthesis pathway before dinner!  Unless of course, this is not a typical example of the kind of evolution you claim built most biological features.  If that's the case, I can only assume you're just trying to pull a fast one to show off for your friends.

--------------
"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: Feb. 15 2009,19:22   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,18:13)
Lest we forget:
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,19:07)
Bill, I'll admit that I'm prejudiced when it comes to human ancestry.  I don't want us to be descended from apes, so I need extra convincing when it comes to that.  It's my bias.  I'm not sure how we fit into the picture re: evolution.  I'd like to believe we are a special creation of God, but I'm not wed to the idea.

Wishing something not to be true is NOT a basis for concluding that it is not true, or even unlikely to be true. I gather from your response that you have no basis for doubting that human beings and other great apes share a common ancestor other than your wishes and biases. The science is absolutely clear, however: human beings share common ancestry with the great apes (most recently with chimps and bonobos).
                   
Quote
As for your other questions:  Common ancestry is compatible with front-loaded evolution.

My point is that front-loading is irrelevant to the emergence of humanity IF human beings did not descend from SOME ancestor species or other.
                     
Quote
As for the "immediate precursor", I don't think you understand what I mean by that.  I'm asking for the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them.

I don't think you understand what you have already conceded. If you agree that there is no basis for reasonable doubt that bonobos and chimpanzees (which surely themselves meet the definition of "complex biological systems") share a common ancestor, then you are stating that there is no reasonable doubt that a) there was such a precursor, and b) both populations progressed from that ancestral form to the organisms we see today by means of an unbroken succession of individuals reproducing over the intervening 2.5 million years, culminating in the organisms we know today.
             
Quote
 It's not enough to just point to something and say that it's the immediate precursor.  The two must be connected by a real pathway.

Not enough for what? Your statement that there can be no reasonable doubt of chimp-bonobo common ancestry does all the work that needs to be done. You've already conceded everything important in this discussion, as above. Of course we would like to know more about both that precursor and those intermediates, but the soundness of this inference (of precursor and intermediates progressing to the systems we observe today) depends in no way upon those additional findings.

Bill,

The only question worthy of discussion regarding this issue is the question of MECHANISM.  You seem to be missing that point.  Let's say I accept common ancestry in total.  That does not change the fact that science can't tell me HOW we - or any other species - evolved from their common ancestors.  

Take Albatrossity's example.  If that's typical evolution, then novel features can evolve in one step - pre-regulated, all biosynthetic and metabolic pathways and cycles in place.  Is that the mechanism of evolution?  If so, I've won the debate on how evolution works.  I picked "saltational with big changes in one step", you guys all picked "many untraceable steps".

Do I win?  Or do we have some more 'cipherin' to do?

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

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,19:29   

I may only be a fox, but methinks the following:

Daniel Smith's challenge = goalpost on wheels, new and improved*.

My 2c.




* now with variable height adjusters.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,19:35   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 15 2009,19:22)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 14 2009,18:13)
Lest we forget:
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 12 2009,19:07)
Bill, I'll admit that I'm prejudiced when it comes to human ancestry.  I don't want us to be descended from apes, so I need extra convincing when it comes to that.  It's my bias.  I'm not sure how we fit into the picture re: evolution.  I'd like to believe we are a special creation of God, but I'm not wed to the idea.

Wishing something not to be true is NOT a basis for concluding that it is not true, or even unlikely to be true. I gather from your response that you have no basis for doubting that human beings and other great apes share a common ancestor other than your wishes and biases. The science is absolutely clear, however: human beings share common ancestry with the great apes (most recently with chimps and bonobos).
                   
Quote
As for your other questions:  Common ancestry is compatible with front-loaded evolution.

My point is that front-loading is irrelevant to the emergence of humanity IF human beings did not descend from SOME ancestor species or other.
                       
Quote
As for the "immediate precursor", I don't think you understand what I mean by that.  I'm asking for the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them.

I don't think you understand what you have already conceded. If you agree that there is no basis for reasonable doubt that bonobos and chimpanzees (which surely themselves meet the definition of "complex biological systems") share a common ancestor, then you are stating that there is no reasonable doubt that a) there was such a precursor, and b) both populations progressed from that ancestral form to the organisms we see today by means of an unbroken succession of individuals reproducing over the intervening 2.5 million years, culminating in the organisms we know today.
               
Quote
 It's not enough to just point to something and say that it's the immediate precursor.  The two must be connected by a real pathway.

Not enough for what? Your statement that there can be no reasonable doubt of chimp-bonobo common ancestry does all the work that needs to be done. You've already conceded everything important in this discussion, as above. Of course we would like to know more about both that precursor and those intermediates, but the soundness of this inference (of precursor and intermediates progressing to the systems we observe today) depends in no way upon those additional findings.

Bill,

The only question worthy of discussion regarding this issue is the question of MECHANISM.  You seem to be missing that point.  Let's say I accept common ancestry in total.  That does not change the fact that science can't tell me HOW we - or any other species - evolved from their common ancestors.  

Take Albatrossity's example.  If that's typical evolution, then novel features can evolve in one step - pre-regulated, all biosynthetic and metabolic pathways and cycles in place.  Is that the mechanism of evolution?  If so, I've won the debate on how evolution works.  I picked "saltational with big changes in one step", you guys all picked "many untraceable steps".

Do I win?  Or do we have some more 'cipherin' to do?

I'm interested in hearing why you think that evolution, ie the change of allele frequency over time, can't be decided by:

1: genetic drift

2: errors in duplication

3: selection of traits that allow those with the mutation to pass them on, etc.

On a side note, you postulate a designer, correct?

Could there be more than one designer?  What do you know about the designer?  I am interested as if an archeologist were to discover the remnants of some hereto unknown civilization via the artifacts they've left behind, they try and piece together the society that made them.

Why is ID so quiet on that point?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,20:10   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 15 2009,20:22)
The only question worthy of discussion regarding this issue is the question of MECHANISM.

No, your request was thus:

"It's easy to point to something that works, and works well, and postulate that such a system would be advantageous and selected for...The hard part is finding the precursors - those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment - and finding the path from there to the existing, refined system."*

"What I am asking for is the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them."

There is nothing in these particular requests vis mechanisms. When you state that there is no basis for reasonable doubt of common ancestry between chimps and bonobos, you state that there is no reasonable doubt regarding the fact that 1) there once existed a precursor to these species and 2) an unbroken evolutionary pathway from that precursor to two novel species (chimps and bonobos) must have existed. For the purposes of this discussion you have conceded your request, above.
           
Quote
Let's say I accept common ancestry in total.  That does not change the fact that science can't tell me HOW we - or any other species - evolved from their common ancestors.

Science tells you that variation and selection, reflecting countless contingent events, account for those pathways of descent, including the pathway culminating in Homo sapiens sapiens. Science speaks, but your biases and wishes render you unwilling to listen due to your overvalued attachment to human exceptionalism, as you stated above. Suit yourself.

You did not respond to my other questions:

What basis do you have for excluding human beings from otherwise universal common descent other than your wishes and biases?

In what way is frontloading relevant to the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens absent human descent from an ancestor species ("special creation")?

* ETA: "those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment" expresses a misbegotten understanding of natural selection. It does not follow that precursor organisms "worked less well in the environment." Selection pressures often arise from changing environments; organisms once beautifully adapted to their environments becomes less so as a result of those changes, resulting in increased selection pressures. Successor species are not "superior" or better adapted in some absolute sense; rather, they are better adapted to their later, modified environments.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 15 2009,22:00   

no explanation will be considered that does not describe the entire process, including the xyz coordinates of all states of matter interacting during the process, along with an ontological narrative for the existence of said units of matter that summarily proves that atheists are wrong because Jehovah exists.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,06:25   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 15 2009,19:11)
It is a novel biological system where the immediate precursors are known.  If that's all you want from me, then there it is.  If you read back through my posts however, I never said that it wasn't.  What I was disputing was whether this novel feature was a normal result of plant crosses or if it was the "evolution" of a new feature.  I was not disputing the "novelness" of the feature, nor was I disputing the fact that the parents are known, I was only concerned with the mechanisms by which such novel features are born.  You don't want to discuss mechanisms or anything else related to this.  All you want to do is say you met one of my challenges.  Well hooray for you!  You met one of my challenges.  (Don't stop reading here or snip the rest!)  If you remember though, the specific challenge involved an evolutionary pathway for a novel biological feature.  The challenge was to find the immediate precursor, then go back one more step - so that we can build an agreed upon evolutionary pathway.  The challenge assumed there would be many steps.  You all whined endlessly about how it would be impossible to retrace the specific steps for the evolution of a new feature because it takes millions of years, involves countless mutations, and other assorted excuses.  Now you cite an example that requires only one step!  Geez.  I guess evolutionary pathways are remarkably easy to trace after all!  You guys should be able to knock out the E. coli aminosynthesis pathway before dinner!  Unless of course, this is not a typical example of the kind of evolution you claim built most biological features.  If that's the case, I can only assume you're just trying to pull a fast one to show off for your friends.

No, Daniel. This is what you said.

"What I am asking for is the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them."

And you got it.

Game, set, match.

Oh, BTW, there is more than one step in this pathway. As you would know if you actually read those papers. The F1 crosses made in the lab have different flower morphologies, and are mostly sterile. That single step isn't enough; the final products (two new species) are not just mere collections of both sets of genes. That single step is part of the process, but not the only part, as you seem to think in your simple-minded approach to all things biological. The Soltis group has spent a fair bit of time working out how these plants came to be. Too bad you can't be bothered to read about that before you spout off and move your goalposts again.

Finally, if you are "only concerned about mechanisms", why have you consistently failed to give us the mechanisms behind your "god theory"? How many steps does it take, using think-poof, to get from Lucy to you? Since you admit that I've "met one of your challenges", how about meeting this one for me?

Quit wasting electrons here, hypocrite.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,06:33   

As the  would say, Bloodhound Gang "you can't teach an old god new tricks".

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,06:34   

Damn! Missed my edit! I can has edit buttun?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,06:39   

Of course, I meant "as the Bloodhound gang would say"...

Edit buttun? Pleeease?  :D

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1239
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,11:30   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 16 2009,06:39)
Of course, I meant "as the Bloodhound gang would say"...

Edit buttun? Pleeease?  :D

No.  Bad Dog!  :angry:

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,11:41   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Feb. 16 2009,18:30)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 16 2009,06:39)
Of course, I meant "as the Bloodhound gang would say"...

Edit buttun? Pleeease?  :D

No.  Bad Dog!  :angry:

:p

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,17:45   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 14 2009,18:43)
no random element whatosever?  well fuck me.  

i suppose you know exactly what causes this sort of event in plants then.  because, to the rest of us that don't have God Shades 2.0 or Satan Blockers or whatever lens you are privy to that the entirety of modern biological investigation is lacking, it sure as hell seems to be random.  

it may be more prevalent in certain phylogenetic groups but that's not helping you any here, we have theoretical explanations for that that have an evolutionary basis and not anything based on your misunderstanding or mangling of Schindewolf et al

I'm not helping you out here on that one, until you drop this stupid goal post moving game and start acting like a man and admit that your demand has been met.  i've got a bagful of these examples, O Petulant One, but I'm going to enjoy slapping you with them one at a time.  and I'm not done with this one yet.  what makes this non-random?

If it's a truly random event, would it be repeatable at the frequency we're seeing?

Tragopogon miscellus has formed as many as 20 times and T. mirus,  12 times, in eastern Washington and Idaho in only the past 60–70 years.

These speciation events are recurrent: the same species is forming the same way, numerous times.  Does this fit any definition of "random"?

--------------
"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: Feb. 16 2009,18:09   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 15 2009,18:10)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 15 2009,20:22)
The only question worthy of discussion regarding this issue is the question of MECHANISM.

No, your request was thus:

"It's easy to point to something that works, and works well, and postulate that such a system would be advantageous and selected for...The hard part is finding the precursors - those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment - and finding the path from there to the existing, refined system."*

"What I am asking for is the immediate precursor to an extant biological system - with the evolutionary path between them."

There is nothing in these particular requests vis mechanisms. When you state that there is no basis for reasonable doubt of common ancestry between chimps and bonobos, you state that there is no reasonable doubt regarding the fact that 1) there once existed a precursor to these species and 2) an unbroken evolutionary pathway from that precursor to two novel species (chimps and bonobos) must have existed. For the purposes of this discussion you have conceded your request, above.

Except the part about the evolutionary path.  I want to know what it is (that involves mechanism).  You're still just pointing to two creatures and saying "connect the dots".               
Quote
Quote
Let's say I accept common ancestry in total.  That does not change the fact that science can't tell me HOW we - or any other species - evolved from their common ancestors.

Science tells you that variation and selection, reflecting countless contingent events, account for those pathways of descent, including the pathway culminating in Homo sapiens sapiens. Science speaks, but your biases and wishes render you unwilling to listen due to your overvalued attachment to human exceptionalism, as you stated above. Suit yourself.

Science "speaks".  Science "tells me" that "variation and selection, reflecting countless contingent events, account for those pathways of descent".  Handwaving anyone?  Science has none of these pathways worked out.  Science does not know whether "variation and selection" or "saltational evolution" produced one species from another.  Science can not know the specific mechanism that caused these evolutionary events until science knows exactly what the changes were and when and how they occurred.

Take Albatrossity's flowers for example.  If they were discovered centuries from now - when the exact number of "contingent events" necessary to produce the morphological feature in question was unknown - do you think science would be able to tell whether it was one event or many?

Quote
You did not respond to my other questions:

What basis do you have for excluding human beings from otherwise universal common descent other than your wishes and biases?

Things such as speech, language, culture, design, learning potential - in short the things that set us apart from apes.

Quote
In what way is frontloading relevant to the emergence of Homo sapiens sapiens absent human descent from an ancestor species ("special creation")?

It wouldn't be if we were a special creation.  If we are not, then it is relevant.

Quote
* ETA: "those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment" expresses a misbegotten understanding of natural selection. It does not follow that precursor organisms "worked less well in the environment." Selection pressures often arise from changing environments; organisms once beautifully adapted to their environments becomes less so as a result of those changes, resulting in increased selection pressures. Successor species are not "superior" or better adapted in some absolute sense; rather, they are better adapted to their later, modified environments.


Those are nice stories Bill, got any data to back them up?

--------------
"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: Feb. 16 2009,18:50   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)
Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy".

I'm not sure you read the papers Albatrossity.  If you had, you'd also know that they are positing genetic rearrangement as part of the polyploid process.

Look at Fig 2 in this paper: "Polyploidy: recurrent formation and genome evolution", by Douglas E. Soltis and Pamela S. Soltis.

It is a diagram contrasting the traditional view of polyploidy with the revised view.  Notice how often they refer to genetic rearrangements?  (It helps to look at the picture, but here's the caption):
       
Quote
Fig. 2. Comparison of (a) traditional view of genomic evolution subsequent to polyploid formation with (b) new or revised view. The classic view of genome evolution suggested that interactions between the parental genomes of an allopolyploid were minimal. Recently, it has become apparent that both intra- as well as intergenomic rearrangements occur. (b) In this example, arrows indicate genomic rearrangementsintragenomic rearrangements are represented by hatched areas on chromosomes from ‘diploid B’; intergenomic rearrangements are represented by translocation of ‘black’ or ‘white’ chromosomal segments between the genomes of ‘diploid A’ and ‘diploid B’. The degree of genomic change can also be influenced by cytoplasmic–nuclear interactions. In a newly formed allopolyploid, there are adverse interactions between the nuclear genome contributed by the male parental diploid and both the nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes of the female parental diploid; genome adjustments must occur to restore nuclear– cytoplasmic compatibility. Available data suggest that the nuclear genome of maternal origin experiences less change than does the paternal nuclear genome. Other evidence implicates transposable elements in the genome reorganization that has been detected in polyploids.


So you see Albatrossity - you were wrong about that.  It would seem that you are working from the traditional view of polyploidy rather than the revised view that Soltis and Soltis now champion.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,19:06   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:50)
   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)
Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy".

I'm not sure you read the papers Albatrossity.  If you had, you'd also know that they are positing genetic rearrangement as part of the polyploid process.

Nice try, dipshit. Read your words again, and this time pretend that you are a scientist. What part of what they report is "due to polyploidy"? In common parlance, "due to" implies a causal relationship. How does polyploidy cause rearrangements? What mechanism (your favorite word!) is involved in this causality?  Did SchindewolfBergDavison or one of their many acolytes predict this?

Point #2 involves your hypocrisy. In your reply to R. Bill, you wrote      
Quote
Except the part about the evolutionary path.  I want to know what it is (that involves mechanism).

Yet you can't give us a mechanism for think-poof.

Point #3. Answer the question that you ignored from my last comment

How many steps does it take, using think-poof, to get from Lucy to you? Since you admit that I've "met one of your challenges", how about meeting this one for me?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,19:13   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,19:50)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)
Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy".

I'm not sure you read the papers Albatrossity.  If you had, you'd also know that they are positing genetic rearrangement as part of the polyploid process.

Look at Fig 2 in this paper: "Polyploidy: recurrent formation and genome evolution", by Douglas E. Soltis and Pamela S. Soltis.

It is a diagram contrasting the traditional view of polyploidy with the revised view.  Notice how often they refer to genetic rearrangements?  (It helps to look at the picture, but here's the caption):
       
Quote
Fig. 2. Comparison of (a) traditional view of genomic evolution subsequent to polyploid formation with (b) new or revised view. The classic view of genome evolution suggested that interactions between the parental genomes of an allopolyploid were minimal. Recently, it has become apparent that both intra- as well as intergenomic rearrangements occur. (b) In this example, arrows indicate genomic rearrangementsintragenomic rearrangements are represented by hatched areas on chromosomes from ‘diploid B’; intergenomic rearrangements are represented by translocation of ‘black’ or ‘white’ chromosomal segments between the genomes of ‘diploid A’ and ‘diploid B’. The degree of genomic change can also be influenced by cytoplasmic–nuclear interactions. In a newly formed allopolyploid, there are adverse interactions between the nuclear genome contributed by the male parental diploid and both the nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes of the female parental diploid; genome adjustments must occur to restore nuclear– cytoplasmic compatibility. Available data suggest that the nuclear genome of maternal origin experiences less change than does the paternal nuclear genome. Other evidence implicates transposable elements in the genome reorganization that has been detected in polyploids.


So you see Albatrossity - you were wrong about that.  It would seem that you are working from the traditional view of polyploidy rather than the revised view that Soltis and Soltis now champion.

It's so cute when the tards 'explain' science to the scientists.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,19:18   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,17:45)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 14 2009,18:43)
no random element whatosever?  well fuck me.  

i suppose you know exactly what causes this sort of event in plants then.  because, to the rest of us that don't have God Shades 2.0 or Satan Blockers or whatever lens you are privy to that the entirety of modern biological investigation is lacking, it sure as hell seems to be random.  

it may be more prevalent in certain phylogenetic groups but that's not helping you any here, we have theoretical explanations for that that have an evolutionary basis and not anything based on your misunderstanding or mangling of Schindewolf et al

I'm not helping you out here on that one, until you drop this stupid goal post moving game and start acting like a man and admit that your demand has been met.  i've got a bagful of these examples, O Petulant One, but I'm going to enjoy slapping you with them one at a time.  and I'm not done with this one yet.  what makes this non-random?

If it's a truly random event, would it be repeatable at the frequency we're seeing?

Tragopogon miscellus has formed as many as 20 times and T. mirus,  12 times, in eastern Washington and Idaho in only the past 60–70 years.

These speciation events are recurrent: the same species is forming the same way, numerous times.  Does this fit any definition of "random"?

you really wanna fuck your brain go look up what a strict cladist will tell you about this.  phylogenetic species concept.

whether or not these speciation 'events' involve the same polyploid 'species' is certainly up for debate.  part of the quibble is in definitions.  most of it is in concept.

just to make a point, i'll argue that these are not the same species, but there are as many species as there are events.  so your claim that the same species is forming the same way, numerous times, would be wrong by definition.  of course that is not so interesting, better to delve into the details here.

your notion that this is the 'same species forming multiple independent times' could be sloppy formulation of your idea, or it could be a poor grasp of what the phylogenetic question is, or it could be a peek at your essentialist metaphysic.  i'd suggest the latter.

What makes you say 'this same species has formed the same way numerous times?'  Show us your slip, luv.  Peek at them knickers.

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,19:33   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,17:06)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:50)
           
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)
Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy".

I'm not sure you read the papers Albatrossity.  If you had, you'd also know that they are positing genetic rearrangement as part of the polyploid process.

Nice try, dipshit. Read your words again, and this time pretend that you are a scientist. What part of what they report is "due to polyploidy"? In common parlance, "due to" implies a causal relationship. How does polyploidy cause rearrangements? What mechanism (your favorite word!) is involved in this causality?  Did SchindewolfBergDavison or one of their many acolytes predict this?


I guess you had to snip the part of the paper I posted to avoid the obvious faux pas you made.  Here's the relevant part:
Quote
In a newly formed allopolyploid, there are adverse interactions between the nuclear genome contributed by the male parental diploid and both the nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes of the female parental diploid; genome adjustments must occur to restore nuclear–cytoplasmic compatibility.


What are they talking about here?  "Compatibility" between what exactly?  Two distinct diploid genomes?  How does an organism end up that way?  How can there be adverse interactions between two diploid genomes if not for polyploidy?  What part of these genetic rearrangements are not caused by polyploidy?  

Why can't you admit you were wrong?

I snipped your other two points until we're finished with this one.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,20:04   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,19:33)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,17:06)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:50)
               
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)
Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy".

I'm not sure you read the papers Albatrossity.  If you had, you'd also know that they are positing genetic rearrangement as part of the polyploid process.

Nice try, dipshit. Read your words again, and this time pretend that you are a scientist. What part of what they report is "due to polyploidy"? In common parlance, "due to" implies a causal relationship. How does polyploidy cause rearrangements? What mechanism (your favorite word!) is involved in this causality?  Did SchindewolfBergDavison or one of their many acolytes predict this?


I guess you had to snip the part of the paper I posted to avoid the obvious faux pas you made.  Here's the relevant part:    
Quote
In a newly formed allopolyploid, there are adverse interactions between the nuclear genome contributed by the male parental diploid and both the nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes of the female parental diploid; genome adjustments must occur to restore nuclear–cytoplasmic compatibility.


What are they talking about here?  "Compatibility" between what exactly?  Two distinct diploid genomes?  How does an organism end up that way?  How can there be adverse interactions between two diploid genomes if not for polyploidy?  What part of these genetic rearrangements are not caused by polyploidy?  

Why can't you admit you were wrong?

I snipped your other two points until we're finished with this one.

From the abstract of the paper you cite, my bolding  
Quote
Extensive and rapid genome restructuring can occur after polyploidization. Such changes can be mediated by transposons. Polyploidization could represent a period of transilience, during which genomic changes occur, potentially producing new gene complexes and facilitating rapid evolution.

The Soltis team hypothesizes that this could be causal. That is, as I'm sure you understand, different from your bald-faced use of the unequivocal words "due to".

More interestingly, now we've come full circle. You are telling me the mechanisms involved in speciation in Tragopogon. Mechanisms that you previously claimed were not known, and never would be known. That's damned funny.

Just to get you on to the real questions, I'll concede that the evidence points toward genomic rearrangements as part of the mechanism of speciation in allopolyploids. You win. But what do you win?  You've conceded your original point, and actually defended a rebuttal of your original point, which clears the path to hearing you finally explain the mechanisms of think-poofery leading from Lucy to you.

We're all waiting.

Thanks

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,20:27   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,19:09)
Except the part about the evolutionary path.  I want to know what it is (that involves mechanism).  You're still just pointing to two creatures and saying "connect the dots".

YOU established that the dots MUST have been connected in an unbroken chain of descent when you accepted common descent between these two species. Given common descent, that cannot be doubted. Are you recanting you statement vis common descent of chimps and bonobos?
   
Quote
Handwaving anyone?  Science has none of these pathways worked out.

The fact is that once one has has accepted common descent vis these two species, one has established that, whatever those pathways from precursor to descendant, such a pathway certainly exists. That establishes everything important vis your above recent demand.*
   
Quote
Science does not know whether "variation and selection" or "saltational evolution" produced one species from another.  Science can not know the specific mechanism that caused these evolutionary events until science knows exactly what the changes were and when and how they occurred.

As I said, suit yourself.
   
Quote
   
Quote
You did not respond to my other questions:

What basis do you have for excluding human beings from otherwise universal common descent other than your wishes and biases?

Things such as speech, language, culture, design, learning potential - in short the things that set us apart from apes.

Incredulity isn't an argument.
   
Quote
   
Quote
* ETA: "those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment" expresses a misbegotten understanding of natural selection. It does not follow that precursor organisms "worked less well in the environment." Selection pressures often arise from changing environments; organisms once beautifully adapted to their environments becomes less so as a result of those changes, resulting in increased selection pressures. Successor species are not "superior" or better adapted in some absolute sense; rather, they are better adapted to their later, modified environments.


Those are nice stories Bill, got any data to back them up?

This is a conceptual issue, Daniel. You have incorrectly stated current evolutionary theory at a conceptual level.

*ETA: Unless you are actually interested in the natural history of these beautiful and significant animals. Which you demonstrably are not.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,22:11   

Daniel,

Quote
If it's a truly random event, would it be repeatable at the frequency we're seeing?


Considering the way physicists use "random", I would say there's no conflict between random and occurring repeatedly at some frequency.

Quote
These speciation events are recurrent: the same species is forming the same way, numerous times.  Does this fit any definition of "random"?


Yes, if the probability is high enough to get multiple occurrences. Especially in a case like the one under discussion here, if I'm following it correctly.

IMO, demanding an immediate precursor for a feature doesn't really make sense. For most features of much complexity, the current theory implies that there won't be one: a more recent ancestor would have a less evolved version of the same feature, and a more distant one would have precursors, but they wouldn't be immediate. A sudden boundary between having and not having a complicated feature would be rare. I'm not even sure that the case under discussion here qualifies as that, since presumably the new species doesn't have any specific abilities not present in its ancestor species, outside of being able to mate with others of its kind.

Quote
Science can not know the specific mechanism that caused these evolutionary events until science knows exactly what the changes were and when and how they occurred.


What makes you so sure of that? The current theory predicts patterns that are very unlikely to occur consistently by accident if the theory is wrong; that's why scientists regard it as established beyond reasonable doubt. Its acceptance is not because of reconstructions of exact prehistoric sequences of events; unless there's a still living species descended from each step of that series, such a reconstruction is rather unlikely to reach the level of detail you seem to be demanding. When partial reconstructions of that sort are possible, that's an application of the theory, not a prerequisite to accepting it.

On a side note, I wonder how hybridization compares to polyploidy as a generator of new species? More frequent, or less?

Henry

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 16 2009,22:23   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:09)
Science "speaks".  Science "tells me" that "variation and selection, reflecting countless contingent events, account for those pathways of descent".  Handwaving anyone?  Science has none of these pathways worked out. ?

Except the ones that are, whereupon you then proceed to move your goalposts back even to abiogenesis, if necessary, to maintain your delusional state in which your incredulity beats known, demonstrable evidence.  

 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:09)
 
Quote
What basis do you have for excluding human beings from otherwise universal common descent other than your wishes and biases?

Things such as speech, language, culture, design, learning potential - in short the things that set us apart from apes.?

All the things you listed are found in chimps, in varying degrees of elaboration.

Some are well-developed in the wild, some are basic -- but ALL of them are found in chimps. Your next move is to express unwarranted incredulity when shown examples of each... despite

(1) the aspects you listed existing in chimps in at least rudimentary form, therefore not exclusive to humans,
(2) You having read virtually nothing on the topic, I'd wager.

Oh, and I'll also guess you'll try to split semantic hairs on what each consists of. Your goalposts will be flying around like crazy, per your usual tactic.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,10:22   

I'm still in awe over the absurdity of IDists who want the exact pathways of evolution but offer absolutely nothing on the identities of the designers.

Isn't ID doomed to fail as even if the life on planet Earth were conclusively shown to be a product of some designers, how did the designers come about?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,10:23   

Daniel,


How many designers are there?  What are some of the characteristics of these designers?


Thanks in advance

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,12:50   

Quote
On a side note, I wonder how hybridization compares to polyploidy as a generator of new species? More frequent, or less?


great question.  apparently we are never going to get to that because of the timeouts while goalposts are shifted.

anyway answer depends on the question.  gene flow can break up adaptive gene complexes, so there is room for selection to reinforce divergence.  the opposite can also be true, gene flow can limit divergence if fitness effects are more or less neutral.  Mike Arnold's book is a good one for this stuff but he certainly is banging a drum for his POV.

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

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

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

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,14:02   

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 17 2009,11:22)
I'm still in awe over the absurdity of IDists who want the exact pathways of evolution but offer absolutely nothing on the identities of the designers.

Isn't ID doomed to fail as even if the life on planet Earth were conclusively shown to be a product of some designers, how did the designers come about?

I'd like to hear about the mechanism of The Great Unnamed Pooftard in the Sky.

How does *poof* TARD work, precisely?

At what point(s) in time and in what location was said *poof(s)*, TARD?

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,14:04   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,19:33)
I snipped your other two points until we're finished with this one.

Citrate.

And hark at the Daniel.

Quote
until we're finished with this one.


How do you pick and choose the points you want to talk about Daniel? Straw poll? Random number generator?

Or do you do it in a different way?

What's next?

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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,18:25   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 16 2009,22:23)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:09)
Science "speaks".  Science "tells me" that "variation and selection, reflecting countless contingent events, account for those pathways of descent".  Handwaving anyone?  Science has none of these pathways worked out. ?

Except the ones that are, whereupon you then proceed to move your goalposts back even to abiogenesis, if necessary, to maintain your delusional state in which your incredulity beats known, demonstrable evidence.  

     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:09)
     
Quote
What basis do you have for excluding human beings from otherwise universal common descent other than your wishes and biases?

Things such as speech, language, culture, design, learning potential - in short the things that set us apart from apes.?

All the things you listed are found in chimps, in varying degrees of elaboration.

Some are well-developed in the wild, some are basic -- but ALL of them are found in chimps. Your next move is to express unwarranted incredulity when shown examples of each... despite

(1) the aspects you listed existing in chimps in at least rudimentary form, therefore not exclusive to humans,
(2) You having read virtually nothing on the topic, I'd wager.

Oh, and I'll also guess you'll try to split semantic hairs on what each consists of. Your goalposts will be flying around like crazy, per your usual tactic.

I remember you and others having the same conversation with good old AFDave years ago.  What amazes me is how many people have no real knowledge of chimps at all.  My wife periodically teaches a primates class for her anthropology students and takes them out to a nearby retirement center for chimps.  For the students, spending even a small amount of time around the chimps makes it impossible not to see those qualities.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,19:02   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 16 2009,17:18)
             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,17:45)
               
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 14 2009,18:43)
no random element whatosever?  well fuck me.  

i suppose you know exactly what causes this sort of event in plants then.  because, to the rest of us that don't have God Shades 2.0 or Satan Blockers or whatever lens you are privy to that the entirety of modern biological investigation is lacking, it sure as hell seems to be random.  

it may be more prevalent in certain phylogenetic groups but that's not helping you any here, we have theoretical explanations for that that have an evolutionary basis and not anything based on your misunderstanding or mangling of Schindewolf et al

I'm not helping you out here on that one, until you drop this stupid goal post moving game and start acting like a man and admit that your demand has been met.  i've got a bagful of these examples, O Petulant One, but I'm going to enjoy slapping you with them one at a time.  and I'm not done with this one yet.  what makes this non-random?

If it's a truly random event, would it be repeatable at the frequency we're seeing?

Tragopogon miscellus has formed as many as 20 times and T. mirus,  12 times, in eastern Washington and Idaho in only the past 60–70 years.

These speciation events are recurrent: the same species is forming the same way, numerous times.  Does this fit any definition of "random"?

you really wanna fuck your brain go look up what a strict cladist will tell you about this.  phylogenetic species concept.

whether or not these speciation 'events' involve the same polyploid 'species' is certainly up for debate.  part of the quibble is in definitions.  most of it is in concept.

just to make a point, i'll argue that these are not the same species, but there are as many species as there are events.  so your claim that the same species is forming the same way, numerous times, would be wrong by definition.  of course that is not so interesting, better to delve into the details here.

your notion that this is the 'same species forming multiple independent times' could be sloppy formulation of your idea, or it could be a poor grasp of what the phylogenetic question is, or it could be a peek at your essentialist metaphysic.  i'd suggest the latter.

What makes you say 'this same species has formed the same way numerous times?'  Show us your slip, luv.  Peek at them knickers.

Uh... the Soltis and Soltis papers I've read *.

What's even more interesting is that - not only does the same species form numerous times, but the various populations then experience concerted evolution *.  (I didn't know what that was, so I looked it up)              
Quote
Concerted evolution:

The ability of two related genes to evolve together as though constituting a single locus.

Synonym: coincidental evolution.

Source: Biology Online


     
Quote
Our data indicate that concerted evolution is typically operating in the same direction in the two allopolyploids, both of which share T. dubius as one diploid parent. In all but one population examined, T. dubius is the rDNA type that is partially lost and perhaps replaced by units from the other diploid genome (either T. porrifolius or T. pratensis). Given that we examined six allopolyploid populations (and multiple plants per population) that all represent independent polyploidization events (Soltis et al., 1995), our data indicate that molecular evolution of the rDNA cistron in these plants typically follows the same trajectory (i.e., is repeatable).  *

[Note: the one population that does not follow this trend is thought to be the most recently formed and it is postulated that it too will follow the same evolutionary path. - D.S.]


So these species not only have multiple recurrent origins, they also evolve concurrently afterward.  How much of this still sounds random to you?

I smell vindication for the likes of Schindewolf, Berg, Goldschmidt, Grasse, and Davison.

* Source

--------------
"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: Feb. 17 2009,19:16   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,18:04)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,19:33)
       
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 16 2009,17:06)
             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,18:50)
                   
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 14 2009,18:14)
Furthermore, if you had actually READ those papers rather than comb through them for something to hang your dunce cap on, you would know that there is absolutely NO evidence for "some kind of genetic rearrangement due to polypoloidy".

I'm not sure you read the papers Albatrossity.  If you had, you'd also know that they are positing genetic rearrangement as part of the polyploid process.

Nice try, dipshit. Read your words again, and this time pretend that you are a scientist. What part of what they report is "due to polyploidy"? In common parlance, "due to" implies a causal relationship. How does polyploidy cause rearrangements? What mechanism (your favorite word!) is involved in this causality?  Did SchindewolfBergDavison or one of their many acolytes predict this?


I guess you had to snip the part of the paper I posted to avoid the obvious faux pas you made.  Here's the relevant part:          
Quote
In a newly formed allopolyploid, there are adverse interactions between the nuclear genome contributed by the male parental diploid and both the nuclear and cytoplasmic genomes of the female parental diploid; genome adjustments must occur to restore nuclear–cytoplasmic compatibility.


What are they talking about here?  "Compatibility" between what exactly?  Two distinct diploid genomes?  How does an organism end up that way?  How can there be adverse interactions between two diploid genomes if not for polyploidy?  What part of these genetic rearrangements are not caused by polyploidy?  

Why can't you admit you were wrong?

I snipped your other two points until we're finished with this one.

From the abstract of the paper you cite, my bolding        
Quote
Extensive and rapid genome restructuring can occur after polyploidization. Such changes can be mediated by transposons. Polyploidization could represent a period of transilience, during which genomic changes occur, potentially producing new gene complexes and facilitating rapid evolution.

The Soltis team hypothesizes that this could be causal. That is, as I'm sure you understand, different from your bald-faced use of the unequivocal words "due to".

More interestingly, now we've come full circle. You are telling me the mechanisms involved in speciation in Tragopogon. Mechanisms that you previously claimed were not known, and never would be known. That's damned funny.

Just to get you on to the real questions, I'll concede that the evidence points toward genomic rearrangements as part of the mechanism of speciation in allopolyploids. You win. But what do you win?  You've conceded your original point, and actually defended a rebuttal of your original point, which clears the path to hearing you finally explain the mechanisms of think-poofery leading from Lucy to you.

We're all waiting.

Thanks

Actually, I have a mea culpa of my own.  You see, (gulp), it seems you were right after all.

Although genetic rearrangements are often a part of polyploidy speciation...    
Quote
there is no evidence of major chromosomal rearrangements in populations of either T. mirus or T. miscellus.
Source


As for your question, we know the precursor, we know the mechanism in a general sense, let's see if they ever figure out how the two genomes combined to make the new morphological feature.  I'm betting that it will be non-randomly.

--------------
"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: Feb. 17 2009,19:26   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 16 2009,18:27)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 16 2009,19:09)
Except the part about the evolutionary path.  I want to know what it is (that involves mechanism).  You're still just pointing to two creatures and saying "connect the dots".

YOU established that the dots MUST have been connected in an unbroken chain of descent when you accepted common descent between these two species. Given common descent, that cannot be doubted. Are you recanting you statement vis common descent of chimps and bonobos?
         
Quote
Handwaving anyone?  Science has none of these pathways worked out.

The fact is that once one has has accepted common descent vis these two species, one has established that, whatever those pathways from precursor to descendant, such a pathway certainly exists. That establishes everything important vis your above recent demand.*
         
Quote
Science does not know whether "variation and selection" or "saltational evolution" produced one species from another.  Science can not know the specific mechanism that caused these evolutionary events until science knows exactly what the changes were and when and how they occurred.

As I said, suit yourself.
         
Quote
         
Quote
You did not respond to my other questions:

What basis do you have for excluding human beings from otherwise universal common descent other than your wishes and biases?

Things such as speech, language, culture, design, learning potential - in short the things that set us apart from apes.

Incredulity isn't an argument.
         
Quote
         
Quote
* ETA: "those systems that necessarily didn't work as well in the environment" expresses a misbegotten understanding of natural selection. It does not follow that precursor organisms "worked less well in the environment." Selection pressures often arise from changing environments; organisms once beautifully adapted to their environments becomes less so as a result of those changes, resulting in increased selection pressures. Successor species are not "superior" or better adapted in some absolute sense; rather, they are better adapted to their later, modified environments.


Those are nice stories Bill, got any data to back them up?

This is a conceptual issue, Daniel. You have incorrectly stated current evolutionary theory at a conceptual level.

*ETA: Unless you are actually interested in the natural history of these beautiful and significant animals. Which you demonstrably are not.

Bill,

Have you ever read any of the books on evolution by the authors I cite?  They all support common descent (though not necessarily form a single common ancestor).  Other than my biases about humans, I have no problem with common descent.

However...

Common descent says nothing whatsoever about MECHANISM.

You seem to be of the opinion that 'Evolution = Selection acting upon random variation'.  It doesn't.

Evolution = Change over time - period.

The mechanism for said change is the unsettled point.

Read Schindewolf's Basic Questions in Paleontology for an eye opening experience.

--------------
"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: Feb. 17 2009,19:29   

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 17 2009,08:23)
Daniel,


How many designers are there?  What are some of the characteristics of these designers?


Thanks in advance

Go back and read my previous posts.

I don't try to hide the fact that my designer is the Christian God.

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

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,19:35   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:29)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 17 2009,08:23)
Daniel,


How many designers are there?  What are some of the characteristics of these designers?


Thanks in advance

Go back and read my previous posts.

I don't try to hide the fact that my designer is the Christian God.

Which one of the pantheon?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,19:43   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2009,15:38)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.


[snip]

Louis,

I get it.  No one can understand these issues unless he has first read the books you've read.

I cannot learn about fossils from Otto Schindewolf because he was not a Darwinist.  The man Dr. Norman Newell once called the "world's greatest living paleontologist" is unfit to teach me anything about the fossil record because he did not toe the party line.

I cannot learn genetics from Richard Goldschmidt or William Bateson, nor can I learn about morphological biology from Leo Berg.  In spite of their excellent credentials, I must learn genetics and morphology from someone steeped in the same orthodoxy as you.  That is after all, the only way to get a complete understanding.

Of course, other than "Read a book", you have not contributed anything of substance to this discussion since your failed attempt to defend abiogenesis way back in the beginning.

You've got your Bathroom Wall back, why don't you go back there, enjoy a fart joke or two, and leave me alone.

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

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,19:50   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:43)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2009,15:38)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.


[snip]

Louis,

I get it.  No one can understand these issues unless he has first read the books you've read.

I cannot learn about fossils from Otto Schindewolf because he was not a Darwinist.  The man Dr. Norman Newell once called the "world's greatest living paleontologist" is unfit to teach me anything about the fossil record because he did not toe the party line.

I cannot learn genetics from Richard Goldschmidt or William Bateson, nor can I learn about morphological biology from Leo Berg.  In spite of their excellent credentials, I must learn genetics and morphology from someone steeped in the same orthodoxy as you.  That is after all, the only way to get a complete understanding.

Of course, other than "Read a book", you have not contributed anything of substance to this discussion since your failed attempt to defend abiogenesis way back in the beginning.

You've got your Bathroom Wall back, why don't you go back there, enjoy a fart joke or two, and leave me alone.

You are beginning to blither, as do all fundie yahoos.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,20:15   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:26)
The mechanism for said change is the unsettled point.

Good. Time to describe your mechanism.

By the way, "saltation" isn't a mechanism. It is a proposed description of the rate of change (very rapid, even single step) in evolution. It calls for explanation in the form of a mechanism.

Describe your proposed mechanism for saltation. Provide us with an illustration of it operating in a specific instance. The example of chimps and bonobos emerging from a common ancestor will do as an example, although you may prefer another. Your proposed mechanism should offer an explanation for the timing of the saltational events, including divergence of a single population into separate species, the distribution of features among the daughter species, their progressive differentiation, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.

Ready, set, GO!

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,20:18   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,19:16)
As for your question, we know the precursor, we know the mechanism in a general sense, let's see if they ever figure out how the two genomes combined to make the new morphological feature.  I'm betting that it will be non-randomly.

That's not my question.

Here it is again.

If you are "only concerned about mechanisms", why have you consistently failed to give us the mechanisms behind your "god theory"? How many steps does it take, using think-poof, to get from Lucy to you? Since you admit that I've "met one of your challenges", how about meeting this one for me?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,20:19   

Great minds think alike.

Daniel?

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,20:22   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 17 2009,20:19)
Great minds think alike.

Daniel?

Well, we do share a birthday, after all :-)

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 17 2009,20:28   

Daniel, you owe us both gifts.

Your mechanism?

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
clamboy



Posts: 299
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,00:25   

Daniel Smith will not answer the question of mechanism, ever.
Creationists do not answer questions, ever.

The ginger vodka may be working its magic, but at least I know these two truths.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,01:55   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,03:29)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 17 2009,08:23)
Daniel,


How many designers are there?  What are some of the characteristics of these designers?


Thanks in advance

Go back and read my previous posts.

I don't try to hide the fact that my designer is the Christian God.

So what the fuck are you doing here?

You should be in some bible class have a cluster whatever it is they do.

Oh wait......



Preachin'

carry on

You know BTW that it can be mathmatically proven god doesn't exist?


BWHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

fundie loser

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,03:12   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,19:29)
I don't try to hide the fact that my designer is the Christian God.

It's a "fact" is it?

Tell me, how did you come to that determination? There are many hundreds of them out there, apparently.

How come you know for a fact that the "real" one, the one that did all the designing, is the one you happen to worship?

That's some coincidence yeah?

Citrate.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,04:17   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,01:43)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2009,15:38)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.


[snip]

Louis,

I get it.  No one can understand these issues unless he has first read the books you've read.

I cannot learn about fossils from Otto Schindewolf because he was not a Darwinist.  The man Dr. Norman Newell once called the "world's greatest living paleontologist" is unfit to teach me anything about the fossil record because he did not toe the party line.

I cannot learn genetics from Richard Goldschmidt or William Bateson, nor can I learn about morphological biology from Leo Berg.  In spite of their excellent credentials, I must learn genetics and morphology from someone steeped in the same orthodoxy as you.  That is after all, the only way to get a complete understanding.

Of course, other than "Read a book", you have not contributed anything of substance to this discussion since your failed attempt to defend abiogenesis way back in the beginning.

You've got your Bathroom Wall back, why don't you go back there, enjoy a fart joke or two, and leave me alone.

Nope, you don't get it. Shall I call you the WAAAAAAAAAHmbulance? Perhaps some cheese to go with that whine? No? Thought not.

You can learn all you want from Schindewolf, or anyone you like, up to and including Paley, Aristotle,  and the girls from Bananarama (all of whom have very different ideas about evolutionary biology). You'll find no complaint from me (in fact you'll find encouragement). I'll also encourage you to read MORE than these people's works. In fact I think I might have done so. One of the problems you have Denial is a common one: you project your own biases onto others. There is no orthodoxy for me, the fact that you misunderstand that is....well hilarious, but also telling.

Like I said regarding discussing abiogenesis, if I had the slightest notion that you were going to participate in a discussion in good faith I'd be all over it. Oh and BTW since I haven't tried to "defend" abiogenesis, how can I have failed? I simply haven't bothered because I consider you to be a dishonest creationist turd. Look at (for example) RFJE's (initial) claims: dealt with quickly and simply. I'd cheerfully do the same for you if you were for just one brief second intellectually honest.

My point with you is, was, and remains until proven otherwise that you are a) thoroughly confused, b) labouring under as series of religiously inspired misapprehensions, c) that you lack the BASIC knowledge to attempt what you are attempting, and d) at least currently incapable of forming an honest, basically logical, argument and dealing with such. Look how many electrons have been wasted (and no minor amount of vitriol) just getting you to admit you were wrong about Albatrossity's example only for you to, again, move the goalposts. Why the fuck should I waste my time (technical posts take longer than anything else) educating you when all this is for you is a matter of gainsaying "your enemies" and reinforcing your delusions. Claims to the contrary Denial are not supported by YOUR behaviour HERE.

Ask a question relevant to my area of expertise, make a claim relevant to my area of research and I'll answer it to the best of my ability. As you're talking about biology etc, I'm perfectly happy to leave it to expert biologists to correct you. I'll join in if and when I deem it appropriate. The reason I've said "read a book" and "read these papers" is because you are asking questions that are answered in those books and those papers. Do you really want me to reproduce for you page by page these thousands of documents? Is that a reasonable request do you think?

The problem is Denial, you are an intellectually dishonest little shit and it's plain for all to see. I'll engage you as an intellectually capable adult when you start behaving like one. How and when others waste their time with you is their decision, but I'm going to keep mocking you until you deliver just one tiny shred of intellectual honesty. Now go away and do the basics Denial, it'll help stop you looking like an utter shoulder-be-chipped moron.

Louis

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,04:49   

To put a slight emphasis on the WAAAAAAmbulance:

Genesis with Ricky Gervais

Sorry, had to put that one somewhere. Bathroom Wall, here I cooooome!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,06:00   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,19:26)
Read Schindewolf's Basic Questions in Paleontology for an eye opening experience.

It is a losing gambit for Daniel to play the Schindewolf card.

I have read Grundfragen, and I can testify that it was an eye-closing experience.

Schindewolf musters artificial selection of data and tortuous argumentation to support preconceived notions of front-loading (orthogenesis) in evolution.

Remember Daniel's thread arguing that the evolution of the horse was a problem for modern evolutionary theory, and how Daniel bailed out of the discussion when Schindewolf's errors and omissions were pointed out to him, as in George  Gaylord Simpson's  The Major Features of Evolution?

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,06:30   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 18 2009,12:17)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,01:43)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 15 2009,15:38)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.


[snip]

Louis,

I get it.  No one can understand these issues unless he has first read the books you've read.

I cannot learn about fossils from Otto Schindewolf because he was not a Darwinist.  The man Dr. Norman Newell once called the "world's greatest living paleontologist" is unfit to teach me anything about the fossil record because he did not toe the party line.

I cannot learn genetics from Richard Goldschmidt or William Bateson, nor can I learn about morphological biology from Leo Berg.  In spite of their excellent credentials, I must learn genetics and morphology from someone steeped in the same orthodoxy as you.  That is after all, the only way to get a complete understanding.

Of course, other than "Read a book", you have not contributed anything of substance to this discussion since your failed attempt to defend abiogenesis way back in the beginning.

You've got your Bathroom Wall back, why don't you go back there, enjoy a fart joke or two, and leave me alone.

Nope, you don't get it. Shall I call you the WAAAAAAAAAHmbulance? Perhaps some cheese to go with that whine? No? Thought not.

You can learn all you want from Schindewolf, or anyone you like, up to and including Paley, Aristotle,  and the girls from Bananarama (all of whom have very different ideas about evolutionary biology). You'll find no complaint from me (in fact you'll find encouragement). I'll also encourage you to read MORE than these people's works. In fact I think I might have done so. One of the problems you have Denial is a common one: you project your own biases onto others. There is no orthodoxy for me, the fact that you misunderstand that is....well hilarious, but also telling.

Like I said regarding discussing abiogenesis, if I had the slightest notion that you were going to participate in a discussion in good faith I'd be all over it. Oh and BTW since I haven't tried to "defend" abiogenesis, how can I have failed? I simply haven't bothered because I consider you to be a dishonest creationist turd. Look at (for example) RFJE's (initial) claims: dealt with quickly and simply. I'd cheerfully do the same for you if you were for just one brief second intellectually honest.

My point with you is, was, and remains until proven otherwise that you are a) thoroughly confused, b) labouring under as series of religiously inspired misapprehensions, c) that you lack the BASIC knowledge to attempt what you are attempting, and d) at least currently incapable of forming an honest, basically logical, argument and dealing with such. Look how many electrons have been wasted (and no minor amount of vitriol) just getting you to admit you were wrong about Albatrossity's example only for you to, again, move the goalposts. Why the fuck should I waste my time (technical posts take longer than anything else) educating you when all this is for you is a matter of gainsaying "your enemies" and reinforcing your delusions. Claims to the contrary Denial are not supported by YOUR behaviour HERE.

Ask a question relevant to my area of expertise, make a claim relevant to my area of research and I'll answer it to the best of my ability. As you're talking about biology etc, I'm perfectly happy to leave it to expert biologists to correct you. I'll join in if and when I deem it appropriate. The reason I've said "read a book" and "read these papers" is because you are asking questions that are answered in those books and those papers. Do you really want me to reproduce for you page by page these thousands of documents? Is that a reasonable request do you think?

The problem is Denial, you are an intellectually dishonest little shit and it's plain for all to see. I'll engage you as an intellectually capable adult when you start behaving like one. How and when others waste their time with you is their decision, but I'm going to keep mocking you until you deliver just one tiny shred of intellectual honesty. Now go away and do the basics Denial, it'll help stop you looking like an utter shoulder-be-chipped moron.

Louis

HE MIGHT BE ONE BUT YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,11:13   

Quote
[SNIP]

HE MIGHT BE ONE BUT YOU HAVE NO EXCUSE

What for this time? Have you been drinking exotic hallucinogens from penis gourds again?

Louis

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,19:15   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 17 2009,18:15)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:26)
The mechanism for said change is the unsettled point.

Good. Time to describe your mechanism.

By the way, "saltation" isn't a mechanism. It is a proposed description of the rate of change (very rapid, even single step) in evolution. It calls for explanation in the form of a mechanism.

Describe your proposed mechanism for saltation. Provide us with an illustration of it operating in a specific instance. The example of chimps and bonobos emerging from a common ancestor will do as an example, although you may prefer another. Your proposed mechanism should offer an explanation for the timing of the saltational events, including divergence of a single population into separate species, the distribution of features among the daughter species, their progressive differentiation, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.

Ready, set, GO!

Here's one proposed mechanism.

Here's the one we've been discussing.

Another possibility.

Another.

Saltational evolution in Bark Beetles  
Quote
Our study provides, to our knowledge, the first phylogenetic-
based comparative support for saltational changes in the evolution of aggregation pheromones. It therefore raises the question of how these changes come about.


As for chimps/bonobos, that'll have to wait until I have more time.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,19:31   

you moron you are just being dishonest.

why in the bloody hell would you expect gradual evolution of the constituents of pheromones?  You wouldn't.  You would have no expectation, if you were honest (you are not).

if you fucking READ that paper you will find that there is still a phylogenetic signal in pheromone constituents, but that minor changes to those physiological pathways produce large effects in the ultimate pheromone chemistry.  considering changes in pheromone ratios as equal weight to changes in chemistry doesn't seem very reasonable does it?

if you are honest (You Are Not) you will ask yourself what the null hypothesis would be.  Denial, in other words (I know your sorry preaching ass doesn't have a clue what a null hypothesis is) "What is the expected distribution of pheromones within a clade of insects?".  Answer:  Who Fucking Knows.

You win another Gross Misuse of The Concept of Gradualism award, to go with all the others.  Dumb bastard.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,19:34   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,20:15)
Here's one proposed mechanism.

Here's the one we've been discussing.

Another possibility.

Another.

Saltational evolution in Bark Beetles      
Quote
Our study provides, to our knowledge, the first phylogenetic-
based comparative support for saltational changes in the evolution of aggregation pheromones. It therefore raises the question of how these changes come about.


As for chimps/bonobos, that'll have to wait until I have more time.

Oh brother.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,19:49   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,19:29)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 17 2009,08:23)
Daniel,


How many designers are there?  What are some of the characteristics of these designers?


Thanks in advance

Go back and read my previous posts.

I don't try to hide the fact that my designer is the Christian God.

Good.  You admit it and that is what I'm looking for here.

So, what evidence do you have that it is the Xian god that did it?

Could there be more than one designer?

Could the designers be malicious, negligent, incompetent or worse?

How do you reconcile "less than optimal designs"?  The artery feeding the human heart, easily clogged, small and our eyes, blind spot, etc, come to mind.

Why did the designer have many different eye designs?

There are more but if you want to have ID taken seriously not only are you going to show what is designed and what is ad-hoc but you are going to have to answer all of those questions and more.

So how do you even know your god even exists and is not a projection of your own fears cobbled from bronze age superstitions?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,19:51   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,19:15)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 17 2009,18:15)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:26)
The mechanism for said change is the unsettled point.

Good. Time to describe your mechanism.

By the way, "saltation" isn't a mechanism. It is a proposed description of the rate of change (very rapid, even single step) in evolution. It calls for explanation in the form of a mechanism.

Describe your proposed mechanism for saltation. Provide us with an illustration of it operating in a specific instance. The example of chimps and bonobos emerging from a common ancestor will do as an example, although you may prefer another. Your proposed mechanism should offer an explanation for the timing of the saltational events, including divergence of a single population into separate species, the distribution of features among the daughter species, their progressive differentiation, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.

Ready, set, GO!

Here's one proposed mechanism.

Here's the one we've been discussing.

Another possibility.

Another.

Saltational evolution in Bark Beetles    
Quote
Our study provides, to our knowledge, the first phylogenetic-
based comparative support for saltational changes in the evolution of aggregation pheromones. It therefore raises the question of how these changes come about.


As for chimps/bonobos, that'll have to wait until I have more time.

How do you reconcile gradual evolution with designed creation?

Where does your designers stop designing and allow for changes, what is "front loaded" and where does gradual evolution begin and end?

It seems that you invoke the idea that your designer can do anything without explaining itself which as we know means it really explains nothing at all.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,20:41   

Quote
Could the designers be malicious, negligent, incompetent or worse?


All of the above.

I refuse to worship anything that caused the frakkin pain.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,21:08   

Daniel

Hope you hurry back; you missed your chance to answer this (again).

If you are "only concerned about mechanisms", why have you consistently failed to give us the mechanisms behind your "god theory"? How many steps does it take, using think-poof, to get from Lucy to you?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 18 2009,21:24   

Quote (khan @ Feb. 19 2009,04:41)
Quote
Could the designers be malicious, negligent, incompetent or worse?


All of the above.

I refuse to worship anything that caused the frakkin pain.

Well you would wouldn't you?

That's why the old nomadic cattle rustlers who wrote out all the other gods in their hagiography of the one true cattle rustler and origin of the world made sure you were to blame for that pain!

By the way those old scoundrels could have as many wifes as they liked just so you lot couldn't get a leg up and biff them one unless you liked banishment and eating sand.

Monotheism is great if you have a dick.....especially the worshipping part.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,07:26   

Quote (khan @ Feb. 18 2009,20:41)
Quote
Could the designers be malicious, negligent, incompetent or worse?


All of the above.

I refuse to worship anything that caused the frakkin pain.

What I can not understand is why their god needs to be worshiped.  So this god got lonely and needed to create petty beings so beneath it to worship it for why again?  Hell I got lonely so I just went to a bar!

My favorite of course is the negligent parent, this god of theirs, putting temptation in front of two people who were children and truly ignorant (hey they had no knowledge right so how in the hell can they know what is right and wrong?) and now because of the "fall" everything is going to hell.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,11:24   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,17:15)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:26)

Here's one proposed mechanism.

Here's the one we've been discussing.

Another possibility.

Another.

Saltational evolution in Bark Beetles

The Symonds and Elgar paper on bark beetle pheromone evolution describes an observed pattern (that is, a phylogenetic anticorrelation in pheromone blends), and does NOT specifically detail a mechanism for the evolution of same.

From the paper:
   
Quote
Our results, for Dendroctonus at least, suggest that sibling species may be more different from each other than would be expected even by chance. The trend is weak and, we caution, the standard errors are large, but within Dendroctonus the highest levels of phenotypic difference are between sibling species (phylogenetic distance of one).
In other words, there may be additional selective pressures at work during speciation events that force one pheromone blend to become substantially different from the other.


The authors do speculate about a mechanism to account for this observation. They suggest that the same mechanisms operating during allopatric speciation (which favors reinforcement of differences between similar species--see Coyne & Orr 1997) may be functioning here.

To the extent that this paper illustrates a mechanism for saltational evolution, it does so purely in the context of well-known selective mechanisms.

I haven't yet looked at the other papers you've offered as examples. Maybe you could double-check to make sure that you're not also misinterpreting them?

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,16:04   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 18 2009,19:31)
you moron you are just being dishonest.

why in the bloody hell would you expect gradual evolution of the constituents of pheromones?  You wouldn't.  You would have no expectation, if you were honest (you are not).

if you fucking READ that paper you will find that there is still a phylogenetic signal in pheromone constituents, but that minor changes to those physiological pathways produce large effects in the ultimate pheromone chemistry.  considering changes in pheromone ratios as equal weight to changes in chemistry doesn't seem very reasonable does it?

if you are honest (You Are Not) you will ask yourself what the null hypothesis would be.  Denial, in other words (I know your sorry preaching ass doesn't have a clue what a null hypothesis is) "What is the expected distribution of pheromones within a clade of insects?".  Answer:  Who Fucking Knows.

You win another Gross Misuse of The Concept of Gradualism award, to go with all the others.  Dumb bastard.

so it's been a while since I read this paper, but I was once excited by it also, just not for the fallacious reasons that Denial brought it up.  Pheromones are understudied in most insects and they must be crucial in speciation.

Having slept some since reading it, I note that they don't actually look at changes in blends, just presence or absence of some pheromone compounds.  so my comment above was off the mark.

BUT it's not clear from the paper whether or not the tree is ultrametric.  counting nodes for phylogenetic distance is a really shitty metric, particularly if there is not full taxon sampling (there doesn't seem to be).  if branch lengths are different, then there are different null expectations for the distribution of potential alternative states.

it's not clear to me why they chose the method they did, when there are better comparative methods out there.  lo, there is a veritable cottage industry of comparative methods, but they don't cite any of it

Quote
Bjorklund, M.  1997.  Are 'comparative methods' always necessary?.  Oikos 80:  707-612


haven't read that one, but I think the answer is brutally obvious to anyone who has been nailed by Felsenstein.

anyone out there clear this up for me?

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

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

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,16:05   

Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 19 2009,11:24)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,17:15)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:26)

Here's one proposed mechanism.

Here's the one we've been discussing.

Another possibility.

Another.

Saltational evolution in Bark Beetles

The Symonds and Elgar paper on bark beetle pheromone evolution describes an observed pattern (that is, a phylogenetic anticorrelation in pheromone blends), and does NOT specifically detail a mechanism for the evolution of same.

From the paper:
   
Quote
Our results, for Dendroctonus at least, suggest that sibling species may be more different from each other than would be expected even by chance. The trend is weak and, we caution, the standard errors are large, but within Dendroctonus the highest levels of phenotypic difference are between sibling species (phylogenetic distance of one).
In other words, there may be additional selective pressures at work during speciation events that force one pheromone blend to become substantially different from the other.


The authors do speculate about a mechanism to account for this observation. They suggest that the same mechanisms operating during allopatric speciation (which favors reinforcement of differences between similar species--see Coyne & Orr 1997) may be functioning here.

To the extent that this paper illustrates a mechanism for saltational evolution, it does so purely in the context of well-known selective mechanisms.

I haven't yet looked at the other papers you've offered as examples. Maybe you could double-check to make sure that you're not also misinterpreting them?

Tom they even go on about pheromones being products of secondary metabolites that could shift with host plant preference.  This doesn't say what Denial thinks it does.

He sees "saltation" and gets his panties in a wad.  Read the damn papers, son.

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

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

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,16:36   

Quote
 Phylogenetic analyses of the correlated evolution of continuous characters:  A simulation study.  EP Martins and T Garland Jr 1991.  Evolution 45(3) 534-557
 
Quote
A second conclusion from our simulations is that the minimum evolution method that uses only the changes between most recent nodes and tips... never performs better and often performs considerably worse than does [a model] which uses changes between inferred nodes as well as changes between nodes and tips.  We conclude that neither [non-phylogenetic methods] nor [the minimum evolution method] should be seriously considered for analyzing comparative data




 
Quote
The mode of evolution of aggregation pheromones in Drosophila species
Symonds MRE, Wertheim B.  2005. JOURNAL OF EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY 18(5): 1253-1263    
 
Quote
Abstract: Aggregation pheromones are used by fruit flies of the genus Drosophila to assemble on breeding substrates, where they feed, mate and oviposit communally. These pheromones consist of species-specific blends of chemicals. Here, using a phylogenetic framework, we examine how differences among species in these pheromone blends have evolved. Theoretical predictions, genetic evidence, and previous empirical analysis of bark beetle species, suggest that aggregation pheromones do not evolve gradually, but via major, saltational shifts in chemical composition. Using pheromone data for 28 species of Drosophila we show that, unlike with bark beetles, the distribution of chemical components among species is highly congruent with their phylogeny, with closely related species being more similar in their pheromone blends than are distantly related species. This pattern is also strong within the melanogaster species group, but less so within the virilis species group. Our analysis strongly suggests that the aggregation pheromones of Drosophila exhibit a gradual, not saltational, mode of evolution. We propose that these findings reflect the function of the pheromones in the ecology of Drosophila, which does not hinge on species specificity of aggregation pheromones as signals.


same authors.  haven't read it.  even if there is questionable method selection, it doesn't say what you want it to say.

STFU Denial

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:06   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 17 2009,18:18)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,19:16)
As for your question, we know the precursor, we know the mechanism in a general sense, let's see if they ever figure out how the two genomes combined to make the new morphological feature.  I'm betting that it will be non-randomly.

That's not my question.

Here it is again.

If you are "only concerned about mechanisms", why have you consistently failed to give us the mechanisms behind your "god theory"? How many steps does it take, using think-poof, to get from Lucy to you? Since you admit that I've "met one of your challenges", how about meeting this one for me?

From my Argument from Impossibility:  
Quote
I propose that the ultimate origins of life on this planet will forever be impossible to fully explain. I propose that this impossibility is a consequence of the infinite intelligence of the creator of life: if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means. We may be able to hazard a guess, or propose a natural pathway, but when looked at closely, such explanations will always be found to be unsatisfactorily incomplete. The reason for this is simple: you cannot explain something that cannot happen. It's impossible to explain the impossible. What's more, even if we concede Intelligent Design, we will still be unable to fully explain most of these things. We will not be able to decipher all of the engineering, physics, mathematics or chemistry that went into the actual planning of such systems. It will be as far above our level of intelligence as the ends of the universe are above our heads. This "Argument from Impossibility" is a necessary consequence of the chasm between an infinite mind and our limited human understandings. In short - God's ways are unfathomable.


I'm just being consistent.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:13   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 19 2009,22:05)
[SNIP]

Tom they even go on about pheromones being products of secondary metabolites that could shift with host plant preference.  This doesn't say what Denial thinks it does.

He sees "saltation" and gets his panties in a wad.  Read the damn papers, son.

Bolding mine.

Whuuuu? Secondary metabolites? I'm gonna read me some paper dammit! That just piqued my interest.

Louis

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:14   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 18 2009,02:17)
You can learn all you want from Schindewolf, or anyone you like, up to and including Paley, Aristotle,  and the girls from Bananarama (all of whom have very different ideas about evolutionary biology). You'll find no complaint from me (in fact you'll find encouragement). I'll also encourage you to read MORE than these people's works. In fact I think I might have done so. One of the problems you have Denial is a common one: you project your own biases onto others. There is no orthodoxy for me, the fact that you misunderstand that is....well hilarious, but also telling.

While the books I've read have mostly been written by skeptics of Darwinism (with a few exceptions), when it comes to papers, I almost exclusively read papers by "orthodox" evolutionists.

Have you read Berg, Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, Grasse, Bateson or any of the others who have not embraced Darwinist principles?

Or am I the only one who has to read the works of "others"?

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:19   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,00:14)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 18 2009,02:17)
You can learn all you want from Schindewolf, or anyone you like, up to and including Paley, Aristotle,  and the girls from Bananarama (all of whom have very different ideas about evolutionary biology). You'll find no complaint from me (in fact you'll find encouragement). I'll also encourage you to read MORE than these people's works. In fact I think I might have done so. One of the problems you have Denial is a common one: you project your own biases onto others. There is no orthodoxy for me, the fact that you misunderstand that is....well hilarious, but also telling.

While the books I've read have mostly been written by skeptics of Darwinism (with a few exceptions), when it comes to papers, I almost exclusively read papers by "orthodox" evolutionists.

Have you read Berg, Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, Grasse, Bateson or any of the others who have not embraced Darwinist principles?

Or am I the only one who has to read the works of "others"?

1) There is no such thing as orthodox science

2) Reagarding you and reading anything, I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

3) You might be surprised at what I read/have read, but then since (as noted before) all you care about is dick waving and gainsaying your "enemies", I decline to play your infantile games with lists. Stop posturing and projecting.

Louis

Edits for clarity. Hey it's midnight here. I need sleepy time.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:20   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 19 2009,18:13)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,22:05)
[SNIP]

Tom they even go on about pheromones being products of secondary metabolites that could shift with host plant preference.  This doesn't say what Denial thinks it does.

He sees "saltation" and gets his panties in a wad.  Read the damn papers, son.

Bolding mine.

Whuuuu? Secondary metabolites? I'm gonna read me some paper dammit! That just piqued my interest.

Louis

it's just an offhand comment.  i think it cites some more pertinent work.  you can chemo-nerd all over it.

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

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

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

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:25   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 20 2009,00:20)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 19 2009,18:13)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,22:05)
[SNIP]

Tom they even go on about pheromones being products of secondary metabolites that could shift with host plant preference.  This doesn't say what Denial thinks it does.

He sees "saltation" and gets his panties in a wad.  Read the damn papers, son.

Bolding mine.

Whuuuu? Secondary metabolites? I'm gonna read me some paper dammit! That just piqued my interest.

Louis

it's just an offhand comment.  i think it cites some more pertinent work.  you can chemo-nerd all over it.

But I wanted metabolites!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH

I'm going to sulk in bed. So there!

Louis

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:28   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 18 2009,04:00)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,19:26)
Read Schindewolf's Basic Questions in Paleontology for an eye opening experience.

It is a losing gambit for Daniel to play the Schindewolf card.

I have read Grundfragen, and I can testify that it was an eye-closing experience.

Schindewolf musters artificial selection of data and tortuous argumentation to support preconceived notions of front-loading (orthogenesis) in evolution.

Remember Daniel's thread arguing that the evolution of the horse was a problem for modern evolutionary theory, and how Daniel bailed out of the discussion when Schindewolf's errors and omissions were pointed out to him, as in George  Gaylord Simpson's  The Major Features of Evolution?

I don't remember it like you do.  Schindewolf's data was never impeached - only his interpretation - which is understandable given the makeup of this group.

I repeatedly reminded all of you that horse evolution was one of Schindewolf's examples of gradualism, in fact he called it one of the most well documented cases of gradual evolution in paleontology, (You must've missed that part when you "read" the book), yet you all kept arguing that because horse evolution was gradual - Schindewolf was wrong.

My reason for discussing horse evolution in the first place was because of the toes - that's it.  But you all read the thread title and jumped to unfounded conclusions, and then congratulated yourselves for "dismantling" them.

Classic strawman.

--------------
"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: Feb. 19 2009,18:33   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,14:05)
 
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 19 2009,11:24)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 18 2009,17:15)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,20:26)

Here's one proposed mechanism.

Here's the one we've been discussing.

Another possibility.

Another.

Saltational evolution in Bark Beetles

The Symonds and Elgar paper on bark beetle pheromone evolution describes an observed pattern (that is, a phylogenetic anticorrelation in pheromone blends), and does NOT specifically detail a mechanism for the evolution of same.

From the paper:
       
Quote
Our results, for Dendroctonus at least, suggest that sibling species may be more different from each other than would be expected even by chance. The trend is weak and, we caution, the standard errors are large, but within Dendroctonus the highest levels of phenotypic difference are between sibling species (phylogenetic distance of one).
In other words, there may be additional selective pressures at work during speciation events that force one pheromone blend to become substantially different from the other.


The authors do speculate about a mechanism to account for this observation. They suggest that the same mechanisms operating during allopatric speciation (which favors reinforcement of differences between similar species--see Coyne & Orr 1997) may be functioning here.

To the extent that this paper illustrates a mechanism for saltational evolution, it does so purely in the context of well-known selective mechanisms.

I haven't yet looked at the other papers you've offered as examples. Maybe you could double-check to make sure that you're not also misinterpreting them?

Tom they even go on about pheromones being products of secondary metabolites that could shift with host plant preference.  This doesn't say what Denial thinks it does.

He sees "saltation" and gets his panties in a wad.  Read the damn papers, son.

You're right.

I posted the last few papers in that list in a rush.  I was in the process of making up a list of relevant papers and I stumbled upon those and browsed through them.  Then my daughter needed to use the computer so I just posted it.

I should have just deleted it instead.  I stand by Davison's semi-meiosis and the Soltis and Soltis paper.  The rest are not vetted.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,18:38   

bwaha

you're a fraud denial.  there is interesting science in that paper but you wanna blather about crap

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,19:04   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2009,18:06)
I'm just being consistent.

Maybe you can buy a dictionary someday as well. Being a hypocrite is not "being consistent".

Demanding detailed mechanisms, precursors and pathways from others. while allowing yourself to indulge in a mechanism-free, precursor-free and pathway-free exercise in goalpost tectonics is hypocrisy.

But you are, for certain, consistently hypocritical.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,19:12   

Quote
goalpost tectonics


I LIKE that!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,19:15   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2009,19:33)
You're right.

I posted the last few papers in that list in a rush.  I was in the process of making up a list of relevant papers and I stumbled upon those and browsed through them.  Then my daughter needed to use the computer so I just posted it.

I should have just deleted it instead.  I stand by Davison's semi-meiosis and the Soltis and Soltis paper.  The rest are not vetted.

Your papers are ALL non-responsive to my (and Albatrossity's) question.

You said "mechanism is the unsettled point." You reject current mechanisms and claim an alternative. What I want to see is YOUR understanding of that alternative.

Don't point us to papers that present differing mechanisms that have nothing to do with each other nor anything to do with the example at hand (chimps and bonobos from a common ancestor). That's throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. Write up YOUR understanding of the mechanism you are advancing as superior to current theory.

Your proposed mechanism should offer an explanation for the timing of saltational events, including divergence of a single population into separate species, the distribution of features among the daughter species, their progressive differentiation, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.

Just a sketch.

So far as I am concerned, if you can't articulate an argument, you don't understand it.

With respect to human evolution, you have argued that properties like speech, language, redundancy, culture, powerful learning abilities and design are evidence that human beings arose through special creation. Why is that? After all, for months you have argued that complex biological systems cannot arise by means of selection and instead must have arisen through processes like the saltational triggering of supernaturally frontloaded design - processes that compel the conclusion of common descent.

Why does the emergence of human speech, culture, learning ability, etc. require an even greater leap (relative to the ancestor we share with chimps and bonobos), than, say, your favorite example of a complex system, the Krebs cycle? A leap that requires rejection of even those processes you have so tediously argued to date - e.g., supernatural frontloading, saltation, etc. - and demands a separate, superdupernatural special creation?

(Even more edits for clarity)

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,19:24   

Quote

You're right.


does this mean he can't be AfDave?

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

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

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

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

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2009,20:38   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 19 2009,20:24)
Quote

You're right.


does this mean he can't be AfDave?

Are they not both lying creo shits?

Is there some way to distinguish?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,09:53   

Quote (khan @ Feb. 19 2009,20:38)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,20:24)
Quote

You're right.


does this mean he can't be AfDave?

Are they not both lying creo shits?

Is there some way to distinguish?

Maybe we could build/design a filter.....

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
American Saddlebred



Posts: 111
Joined: May 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,10:28   

Daniel maintains his composure, AFDave never even tried to.

I dun think they are the same person.

   
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,13:38   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2009,18:28)
My reason for discussing horse evolution in the first place was because of the toes - that's it.
....
Classic strawman.

Quote
Ah, but the strawberries!

That's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes,
but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic,
that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist!


--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,18:13   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,16:38)
bwaha

you're a fraud denial.  there is interesting science in that paper but you wanna blather about crap

I'm still waiting for you to answer this question:    
Quote
So these species [Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus] not only have multiple recurrent origins, they also evolve concurrently afterward.  How much of this still sounds random to you?


--------------
"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: Feb. 20 2009,18:16   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 19 2009,16:19)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,00:14)
Have you read Berg, Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, Grasse, Bateson or any of the others who have not embraced Darwinist principles?

You might be surprised at what I read/have read, but then since (as noted before) all you care about is dick waving and gainsaying your "enemies", I decline to play your infantile games with lists. Stop posturing and projecting.

I'm going to take that as a "No", Louis.

--------------
"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: Feb. 20 2009,18:30   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 19 2009,17:04)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2009,18:06)
I'm just being consistent.

Maybe you can buy a dictionary someday as well. Being a hypocrite is not "being consistent".

Demanding detailed mechanisms, precursors and pathways from others. while allowing yourself to indulge in a mechanism-free, precursor-free and pathway-free exercise in goalpost tectonics is hypocrisy.

But you are, for certain, consistently hypocritical.

My argument is based on life being created by an omniscient God.  My argument is that we mortals will never figure out how he did it.  You all say life is of natural, undirected origins.  You all say we should be able to figure out how it happened.  I'm not the one claiming accidental evolution can build complex living systems - you are.  That's the only reason I'm asking you for mechanisms.

I've consistently said that we'll never figure out how God did it.  What part of that is hypocritical?

Do you still want to talk about flowers?

--------------
"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: Feb. 20 2009,18:32   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 20 2009,11:38)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2009,18:28)
My reason for discussing horse evolution in the first place was because of the toes - that's it.
....
Classic strawman.

   
Quote
Ah, but the strawberries!

That's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes,
but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic,
that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist!

Snip and ignore.  That's the M.O. around here when backed into a corner isn't it?

Do you still want to talk about Schindewolf?

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,18:39   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 21 2009,00:16)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 19 2009,16:19)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,00:14)
Have you read Berg, Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, Grasse, Bateson or any of the others who have not embraced Darwinist principles?

You might be surprised at what I read/have read, but then since (as noted before) all you care about is dick waving and gainsaying your "enemies", I decline to play your infantile games with lists. Stop posturing and projecting.

I'm going to take that as a "No", Louis.

Take it for whatever you want it to be. Your ill-informed opinion matters not.

As noted before, you are demonstrably not here to challenge or be challenged, you are here to gainsay "the opposition" and play silly oneupmanship games best left in the playground.

It's more than a little pathetic, Denial.

Louis

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,19:05   

For Bill:



--------------
"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: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,19:11   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,20:05)
For Bill:


Come again?

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,21:12   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,18:30)
What part of that is hypocritical?

The part where you are hypocritical. If you want to read that previous comment over again and see if you can figure it out, I'll wait.  Or I can highlight it again, like this:

Demanding detailed mechanisms, precursors and pathways from others. while allowing yourself to indulge in a mechanism-free, precursor-free and pathway-free exercise in goalpost tectonics is hypocrisy.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2009,23:04   

The problem (which should be obvious) with the prediction that we'll never figure it out, is that unanswered questions are expected regardless of which model is correct. Therefore the mere existence of unanswered questions can't distinguish between them.

Besides which, the position that "nature can't do that" directly implies that God would be unable to arrange for nature to do that, which contradicts the assumption that God is omnipotent.

Henry

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,01:03   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,18:13)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,16:38)
bwaha

you're a fraud denial.  there is interesting science in that paper but you wanna blather about crap

I'm still waiting for you to answer this question:        
Quote
So these species [Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus] not only have multiple recurrent origins, they also evolve concurrently afterward.  How much of this still sounds random to you?

As I said, you wish to blather about crap.

There is a strong argument to be made that, despite their apparent morphological similarity, individuals from separate polyploidy events in separate populations are not members of the 'same' species.  they have unique evolutionary histories and independent evolutionary trajectories.  Since your species concept involves whatever Noah carried off the ark, it is not surprising you have failed to grasp this point.  I'll play this stupid game with you IFF you explicate and defend your species concept. You won't do it because you are not genuinely interested in these arguments as anything but cover for We Don't Know Yet = goddidit.

what a fucking moron.  

if you think the formation of allopolyploids has some determinate component, by all means do share instead of pissing on the rug.  You have yet to formulate anything even remotely resembling a testable claim here, so here is your shot.  

Quote
So these species [Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus] not only have multiple recurrent origins, they also evolve concurrently afterward.  How much of this still sounds random to you?


The answer to the question is  
Quote
That Doesn't Seem To Be Anything But Random To Me But Perhaps Jesus Teh Designer is whispering something in your ear that he is not whispering into mine, so why don't you share instead of braying like a fucking donkey about shit you know nothing about and aren't interested in learning, just using as an apologetic crutch for spreading your particular brand of stupid blinkered wankery?


Denial do you know how people evaluate the claim that X is random with respect to Y?  Not by stupid false equivalences, for one.

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,02:38   

Quote
I've consistently said that we'll never figure out how God did it.  What part of that is hypocritical?


OK, if that's what it is, the case is settled, so why are you still here?

To persuade science that your assumption is the one and only solution?

So therefore we should begin worshiping your God?

It is getting pretty boring, can't you at least let us (or at least me) know what; what exactly are you selling here? That you are not on a buying spree is obvious, but again: What is it that you want to sell to the world, or what is your gift to the world?

If it is just: Science cannot answer, never will - but I, Daniel knows: God did it (but I don't know how, I just know it in my heart because that's the way it's got to be! If it isn't, I have a huge problem!), we already know that. Is that all there is to it?

Be a Christian and offer your other ear, patience is a Christian virtue, isn't it? Walk another mile with me, won't you, like the Lord said you should?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,04:51   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,18:32)
 
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 20 2009,11:38)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2009,18:28)
My reason for discussing horse evolution in the first place was because of the toes - that's it.
....
Classic strawman.

       
Quote
Ah, but the strawberries!

That's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes,
but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt, and with geometric logic,
that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox did exist!

Snip and ignore.  That's the M.O. around here when backed into a corner isn't it?

Do you still want to talk about Schindewolf?

Possess thy soul in patience, Dear Boy.

I have dusted off my copy of Schindewolf and look forward to working with you on its exegesis when I have a spare moment.

(Sorry, but I couldn't resist the association of the quoted part of your comment with Queeg's rant. The Devil made me do it.)   :angry:

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2009,07:43   

mitschlag in particular simpson's account of schindewolf suggests that there are some serious issues with the domain of observations used by schindewolf to support his contentions.  i think SJG goes over this in more detail in "Structure" but I keep forgetting to bring my copy home.  I'll be paying close attention.  This narrative is a great antidote to Popper and Kuhn.

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

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,07:29   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2009,07:43)
mitschlag in particular simpson's account of schindewolf suggests that there are some serious issues with the domain of observations used by schindewolf to support his contentions.  i think SJG goes over this in more detail in "Structure" but I keep forgetting to bring my copy home.  I'll be paying close attention.  This narrative is a great antidote to Popper and Kuhn.

Erasmus, whatever you care to provide from Structure will be welcome.

Your reference to Gould reminded me of his essay Life's Little Joke, which goes well beyond Simpson in demolishing the simplistic sequence portrayed by Schindewolf.  (Gould wrote in 1991 and had in hand much more data than either Schindewolf or Simpson commanded.)  The entire essay - too long to copy and post here - is provided in the link.  Daniel should read it and comprehend it.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,07:54   

Contra Schindewolf, Part 1 (Introduction)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 19 2009,18:28)
         
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 18 2009,04:00)
                 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 17 2009,19:26)
Read Schindewolf's Basic Questions in Paleontology for an eye opening experience.

It is a losing gambit for Daniel to play the Schindewolf card.

I have read Grundfragen, and I can testify that it was an eye-closing experience.

Schindewolf musters artificial selection of data and tortuous argumentation to support preconceived notions of front-loading (orthogenesis) in evolution.

Remember Daniel's thread arguing that the evolution of the horse was a problem for modern evolutionary theory, and how Daniel bailed out of the discussion when Schindewolf's errors and omissions were pointed out to him, as in George  Gaylord Simpson's  The Major Features of Evolution?

I don't remember it like you do.  Schindewolf's data was never impeached - only his interpretation - which is understandable given the makeup of this group.


As we'll see from the record, we quoted Simpson, who accused Schindewolf of cherry-picking the data.  Does that qualify as "impeachment"?

(As an aside, you might consider avoiding ad hominems like "the makeup of this group" in the future. They add nothing to your argument.)
         
Quote
I repeatedly reminded all of you that horse evolution was one of Schindewolf's examples of gradualism, in fact he called it one of the most well documented cases of gradual evolution in paleontology, (You must've missed that part when you "read" the book), yet you all kept arguing that because horse evolution was gradual - Schindewolf was wrong.


I'm not clear about your point here.  Can you point me to one or more statements by Schindewolf that connect "horse" and "gradualism"?  What's the connection between gradualism and Schindewolf being "wrong"?  Wrong about what?

         
Quote
My reason for discussing horse evolution in the first place was because of the toes - that's it.  But you all read the thread title and jumped to unfounded conclusions, and then congratulated yourselves for "dismantling" them.


What were those "unfounded conclusions"?

Toes to follow...

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,08:31   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 22 2009,08:29)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2009,07:43)
mitschlag in particular simpson's account of schindewolf suggests that there are some serious issues with the domain of observations used by schindewolf to support his contentions.  i think SJG goes over this in more detail in "Structure" but I keep forgetting to bring my copy home.  I'll be paying close attention.  This narrative is a great antidote to Popper and Kuhn.

Erasmus, whatever you care to provide from Structure will be welcome.

Your reference to Gould reminded me of his essay Life's Little Joke, which goes well beyond Simpson in demolishing the simplistic sequence portrayed by Schindewolf.  (Gould wrote in 1991 and had in hand much more data than either Schindewolf or Simpson commanded.)  The entire essay - too long to copy and post here - is provided in the link.  Daniel should read it and comprehend it.

Here is Gould's Structure comment on Schindewolfe. It arises in a discussion uniformitarianism versus catastrophism:

"Despite the uniformitarian consensus from Darwin's time until the late 20th century, occasional scholars of high reputation continued to float catastrophic proposals for the unresolved puzzle of mass extinctions...

"To cite the two most notable examples from the generation before Alvarez, Schindewolfe (1963), in an article entitled "Neokatastrophisimus," proposed bursts of cosmic radiation as the paroxysmal mechanism of mass extinction - with direct nuclear death (for the exterminations) and vast increases in mutation rates among survivors (for subsequent replacements by highly altered forms). But, to show the frustration (and scientific nonoperationality) of such proposals, Schindwolfe actually stated  - thus providing a favorite case that I have used for decades to illustrate the difference between science and speculation - that he had postulated cosmic radiation explicitly because such a cause would leave no empirical sign (then known to geologists) in the record of strata and fossils. (For Schindewolfe had to admit that the empirical record revealed no direct evidence at all for a catastrophic mechanism of mass extinction, and he therefore had to seek a potential cause that would leave no testable sign of its operation! Can one possibly imagine an unhappier situation for science? - to face the prospect of a plausible explanation that does not, in principle, leave evidence for its validation.)"

Reference was to:

Schindewolfe, O. H. 1963 Neokatastrophismus? Zeits. Deutsch. Geol. Res. 114:430-435

Of course, Gould continues with a discussion of Alvarez: "By contrast, the genesis of the [sic] Alvarez's hypothesis for the K-T mass extinction could not have been more different, or more exemplary for science. For the K-T bolide proposal began with an unanticipated empirical discovery - generated, ironically, during a test for an opposite hypothesis, and therefore surely not gathered under the aegis of any iconoclastic theoretical thoughts."

Gould goes on to discuss the initial, nearly universal rejection of Alvarez's hypothesized MECHANISM, followed by a description of the triumph of an EMPIRICALLY TESTABLE hypothesis over subsequent years. He identifies "several reasons to honor the conventional criteria used by scientists to judge the strength and importance of hypotheses - criteria based upon empirical affirmation, fruitful extension, and widening intellectual scope, rather than on such nonoperational notions as progress towards absolute truth." He goes on to note:

1. Alvarez proposed a theory that generated testable predictions: that, for example, the irridium layer would be detected globally. This was confirmed, capped by the discovery of the "smoking gun" of the Chicxulub structure off the Yucatan peninsula.

2. It sparked "a veritable orgy of exciting, and at lease intellectually fruitful, discussion and collaboration" across diverse disciplines,

3. "Most importantly, and diagnostically for scientific practice, the impact hypothesis proved its mettle (at least for me) in the explicit suggestions and prods that it provided for particular (and ultimately highly fruitful and exciting) paleontological research that would never even have been conceptualized without its nudge and encouragement.

From The Structure of Evolutionary Theory pages 1306-1307 and 1308-1309.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,08:32   

Contra Schindewolf, Part 2 (On horse toes - dialog with George)

I believe that this is where toes were introduced into the discussion:
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 28 2007,03:31)
       
Quote (Alan Fox @ Sep. 27 2007,11:25)
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.

You're right.  

In order to keep this thread on topic, I will try to keep my posts focused on the work of Schindewolf and Berg and (at least in the case of Schindewolf) also on the evolution of the horse.

Berg doesn't say a lot about horses other than this from section IV, "Convergence":
                         
Quote
"At the very time when in North America the Equidae were being evolved, forms of the order Litopterna were being elaborated in South America in the plains of the Argentine.  The latter are extinct ungulates, in many respects recalling horses: they had also lost the lateral digits of their limbs, and for progression made use of the median digit; their extremities and neck were likewise lengthened, and in the former, the ball-and-socket joints, by which movements in all directions could be accomplished, were being gradually supplanted by pulley joints, which restricted their limbs to being moved only backwards and forwards; their teeth lengthened and grew more complex (although no cement was present).  This group was extinct in South America before the arrival of horses. The Litopterna, or pseudo-horses, thus copied the horses in many ways.
The same course (as to limbs and teeth) as in horses was followed in the evolution of camels in the New World, and of deer, antelopes, sheep and oxen in the Old"
Nomogenesis, pg. 212.

As for Schindewolf's position, why don't I just start by using the same quote I provided for you over at Brainstorms:                  
Quote
To this extent,the one toed horse must be regarded as the ideal running animal of the plains. It's early Tertiary ancestors had four digits on the front feet and three on the hind feet, and low crowned cheek teeth. Since in the later Tertiary, an expansion of plains at the expense of forests has been observed, this change in environmental conditions and the consequent change in the mode of life has been represented as the cause of linear, progressive selection leading up to the modern horse.
However, in the formulation of this view, not enough consideration has been given to the fact that the evolutionary trend of reduction in the number of toes had already been introduced long before the plains were occupied in the early Tertiary by the precursors of the horse; these inhabited dense scrub, meaning that they lived in an environment where the reduction of the primitive five-toed protoungulate foot was not an advantage at all. In the descendants, then, the rest of the lateral toes degenerated and the teeth grew longer step by step... regardless of the mode of life, which... fluctuated repeatedly, with habitats switching around among forests, savannas, shrubby plains, tundra, and so on.
If selection alone were decisive in this specialization trend, we would have to ascribe to it a completely incomprehensible purposefulness...
Basic Questions in Paleontology pp. 358-359, (emphasis his)

Both of these men intently studied real examples from nature and the fossil record and came to the same conclusions:
1. That evolution of types happened suddenly - not gradually.
2. That subsequent evolution proceeded as if constrained by laws.
3. That natural selection had nothing to do with the formation of any organ.


George challenged Daniel on Schindewolf's claim that reduction in toes preceded the appearance of plains on the planet.  Daniel responded:
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 30 2007,16:56)
     
Quote (George @ Sep. 28 2007,07:44)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 28 2007,03:31)
           
Quote
However, in the formulation of this view, not enough consideration has been given to the fact that the evolutionary trend of reduction in the number of toes had already been introduced long before the plains were occupied in the early Tertiary by the precursors of the horse; these inhabited dense scrub, meaning that they lived in an environment where the reduction of the primitive five-toed protoungulate foot was not an advantage at all. In the descendants, then, the rest of the lateral toes degenerated and the teeth grew longer step by step... regardless of the mode of life, which... fluctuated repeatedly, with habitats switching around among forests, savannas, shrubby plains, tundra, and so on.
If selection alone were decisive in this specialization trend, we would have to ascribe to it a completely incomprehensible purposefulness...
Basic Questions in Paleontology pp. 358-359, (emphasis his)

So basically Schindewolf is saying that horses developed single-toed hooves regardless of the selection pressures applied?  How does he know what those pressures were?  How does he know the scrub was dense?  Paleoecologists today can identify what species were present in the landscape at a point in time, but have much more difficulty in determining vegetation structure.  This has led to disagreements over what the European landscape of most of the Holocene was.  Yes there were lots of oak trees present, but was it closed forest?  Was it patches of scrub interspersed with grassy plains?  Was it widely spaced parkland-like trees?

In other words, what was the quality of his data and how far is he spreading it with rhetoric?

He doesn't go into any details (in this book at least - he may have in others or in one of his papers) about how he knew the environmental conditions were such as he described, so I can't tell you how he determined that.

I'm assuming that the man described in 1965 by Stephen Jay Gould's advisor, Dr. Norman Newell as "the greatest living paleontologist", used the scientific method and the accepted evidence of his day to determine these factors.

You might be in a position to show that he made a false claim, but you must base that on evidence from that time period.


And then:

 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 01 2007,19:37)
   
Quote (George @ Oct. 01 2007,07:22)
You misunderstand me.  I'm not saying he was lying.  I'm questioning how he knew what Tertiary environmental conditions were like and how good were the data he based his conclusions on.  As I said before, it is difficult enough for today's paleoecologists to reconstruct past vegetation.  It would have been much more difficult and imprecise for the ecologists of a century ago.  Palynology, one of the more powerful tools, was only in its infancy.

To summarise:  he may have based his theories on the understanding of the day, but if that understanding is wrong, his ideas crumble.

Schindewolf's book was published (originally - in German) in 1950.  While technically that was in the last century, (so was 1999), it wasn't "a century ago".  

This is what he said:
       
Quote
Since in the later Tertiary, an expansion of plains at the expense of forests has been observed, this change in environmental conditions and the consequent change in the mode of life has been represented as the cause of linear, progressive selection leading up to the modern horse.
(emphasis mine)

I assume "has been observed" means that it was well accepted.  Perhaps newer data has proved him wrong, I don't know.


And yet again:

 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 03 2007,02:22)
   
Quote (George @ Oct. 02 2007,07:57)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Oct. 01 2007,19:37)
Schindewolf's book was published (originally - in German) in 1950.  While technically that was in the last century, (so was 1999), it wasn't "a century ago".
 

My mistake.  I thought you said he worked and wrote in the 1920s.

Perhaps you were thinking of Leo Berg?  He wrote Nomogenesis in 1922.          
Quote

I wasn't questioning this statement:

           
Quote
Since in the later Tertiary, an expansion of plains at the expense of forests has been observed, this change in environmental conditions and the consequent change in the mode of life has been represented as the cause of linear, progressive selection leading up to the modern horse.


I was questioning this one:

             
Quote
However, in the formulation of this view, not enough consideration has been given to the fact that the evolutionary trend of reduction in the number of toes had already been introduced long before the plains were occupied in the early Tertiary by the precursors of the horse; these inhabited dense scrub, meaning that they lived in an environment where the reduction of the primitive five-toed protoungulate foot was not an advantage at all.
(emphasis mine)

My question is how did he know the environment at the time was entirely comprised of dense scrub?  If I were to guess, this statement is based on finds of macrofossils or pollen of scrub species coupled with other proxy data that gave clues about climate.  This may have been the prevailing view at the time.  Don't know.  Doesn't matter.  But I suspect hand-waving.

So, after admitting that you "don't know" what evidence Schindewolf based his argument on, you say that it "doesn't matter", because you "suspect hand-waving".  Is this how science is done?
         
Quote
My point is that knowledge of what species were present at the time doesn't give an accurate picture of what the vegetation structure was at the time, especially over large areas.  I presume the ancestors of horses were widely distributed and not confined to a small isolated valley or two.

As you can see as you walk around in "the wild", vegetation structure varies considerably depending on climate, soil and other things, including the activities of grazing animals.  It is extremely unlikely that the landscape where the ancestors of horses evolved was completely dominated by "dense scrub".  It is extremely likely that there were some more open areas where having fewer toes increased fitness.

Schindewolf was overstating the case that the environment required to select for single-toedness was not present in the early Tertiary.  Because of this, he has no grounds for claiming that development of the trait preceeded selection pressure.

So based on your experience 'walking around in the wild', you've now decided that Schindewolf, one of the premier paleontologists in all of Europe, overstated his case? (a case which, I'm sure, was based on slightly more research than that!)

It's amazing to me how you can delude yourself into thinking you have actually refuted his arguments while presenting no evidence to the contrary from the Tertiary period at all!


At which point, George seems to have thrown in the towel.

More to come...

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,08:41   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 22 2009,08:31)
(For Schindewolfe had to admit that the empirical record revealed no direct evidence at all for a catastrophic mechanism of mass extinction, and he therefore had to seek a potential cause that would leave no testable sign of its operation! Can one possibly imagine an unhappier situation for science? - to face the prospect of a plausible explanation that does not, in principle, leave evidence for its validation.)"

Indeed.

But if that fails, cherry-picking the data is worth trying.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,09:05   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,19:30)
My argument is based on life being created by an omniscient God.  My argument is that we mortals will never figure out how he did it.  You all say life is of natural, undirected origins.  You all say we should be able to figure out how it happened.  I'm not the one claiming accidental evolution can build complex living systems - you are.  That's the only reason I'm asking you for mechanisms.

I've consistently said that we'll never figure out how God did it.  What part of that is hypocritical?

Sorry Daniel, this don't fly.

You've postulated that God assembled cells like people assembling automobiles, and stuffed them with frontloaded information that has been unfolding ever since. And you've said we'll never figure out "how he did it." Indeed.

We are asking for your description of WHAT he did. You say he stuffed those cells with machinery like information-bearing DNA and the Krebs cycle, as well as the ability to appropriately deploy new adaptations and preprogrammed body plans. You claim that events such as speciation and the emergence of major biological features reflect the operation of the mechanisms he stuffed in to those cells.

THAT is what we are requesting from you. Describe the mechanisms that God stuffed into those primordial cells that account for these large scale phenomena spanning deep time. Describe how those mechanisms interact with changing environments to assure that adaptive features arise. Unless you are now claiming that God actively intervened at every such event (then why front load?), you still need to supply a description of that mechanism.

Your proposed mechanism should offer an explanation for the timing of saltational events, including divergence of single populations into separate species, the distribution of features among the daughter species, their progressive differentiation, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.

Begging off into mysterian ignorance won't do.

[edits for clarity]

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,09:17   

wow mitch those little exchanges really made me remember how much of a dishonest petty little lying sophist Denial is.  

oh, so just because you have been outside before you know more than the premier paleontologist in Uzbekistan...

christ give me a break what a pile of shit

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,12:04   

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 20 2009,21:04)
The problem (which should be obvious) with the prediction that we'll never figure it out, is that unanswered questions are expected regardless of which model is correct. Therefore the mere existence of unanswered questions can't distinguish between them.

So after 150+ years of study, science has explained the evolution of exactly zero biological systems.  That's a lot of unanswered questions!
 
Quote
Besides which, the position that "nature can't do that" directly implies that God would be unable to arrange for nature to do that, which contradicts the assumption that God is omnipotent.

Henry

Notice that I usually attach the term "undirected" to the term "natural".  I have no problem believing that God gave us both random and non-random evolutionary mechanisms, but I don't believe the random mechanisms caused any of the macroevolutionary events.

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,12:19   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,19:04)
Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 20 2009,21:04)
The problem (which should be obvious) with the prediction that we'll never figure it out, is that unanswered questions are expected regardless of which model is correct. Therefore the mere existence of unanswered questions can't distinguish between them.

So after 150+ years of study, science has explained the evolution of exactly zero biological systems.  That's a lot of unanswered questions!
   
Quote
Besides which, the position that "nature can't do that" directly implies that God would be unable to arrange for nature to do that, which contradicts the assumption that God is omnipotent.

Henry

Notice that I usually attach the term "undirected" to the term "natural".  I have no problem believing that God gave us both random and non-random evolutionary mechanisms, but I don't believe the random mechanisms caused any of the macroevolutionary events.

You are flying high on bullshit now.



Quote
So after 150+ years of study, science has explained the evolution of exactly zero biological systems.  That's a lot of unanswered questions!


I think it has been done. Sadly, I am not familiar enough with the most recent studies. But if you need pathways that will stand the course of scrutiny, and be validated by evidence, you can always take a look at the evolutionary pathway of whales or horses. The thing is, although these pathways are not yet 100% complete, THEY WORK! They have confirmed predictions based on evolutionary theory, and more discoveries will probably validate it some more. If something doesn't, I think a lot of us here will have simultanious ejaculations due to the sheer prospect of a new view on these mechanisms.

Science isn't closed, far from it. But to be able to advance science, you have to offer science, not magic.



Quote
Notice that I usually attach the term "undirected" to the term "natural".  I have no problem believing that God gave us both random and non-random evolutionary mechanisms, but I don't believe the random mechanisms caused any of the macroevolutionary events.


This sentence, in and of itself, is totaly unconsistent. How can you ever prove that God had anything to do with "random/non-random" mechanisms? If you can, fine, sounds like science, then just state your case. If you can't, forget it, this is not science...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,12:29   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 20 2009,23:03)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,18:13)
           
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,16:38)
bwaha

you're a fraud denial.  there is interesting science in that paper but you wanna blather about crap

I'm still waiting for you to answer this question:                  
Quote
So these species [Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus] not only have multiple recurrent origins, they also evolve concurrently afterward.  How much of this still sounds random to you?

As I said, you wish to blather about crap.

There is a strong argument to be made that, despite their apparent morphological similarity, individuals from separate polyploidy events in separate populations are not members of the 'same' species.  they have unique evolutionary histories and independent evolutionary trajectories.  Since your species concept involves whatever Noah carried off the ark, it is not surprising you have failed to grasp this point.  I'll play this stupid game with you IFF you explicate and defend your species concept. You won't do it because you are not genuinely interested in these arguments as anything but cover for We Don't Know Yet = goddidit.

what a fucking moron.  

if you think the formation of allopolyploids has some determinate component, by all means do share instead of pissing on the rug.  You have yet to formulate anything even remotely resembling a testable claim here, so here is your shot.  

         
Quote
So these species [Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus] not only have multiple recurrent origins, they also evolve concurrently afterward.  How much of this still sounds random to you?


The answer to the question is          
Quote
That Doesn't Seem To Be Anything But Random To Me But Perhaps Jesus Teh Designer is whispering something in your ear that he is not whispering into mine, so why don't you share instead of braying like a fucking donkey about shit you know nothing about and aren't interested in learning, just using as an apologetic crutch for spreading your particular brand of stupid blinkered wankery?


Denial do you know how people evaluate the claim that X is random with respect to Y?  Not by stupid false equivalences, for one.

The evidence speaks for itself Erasmus:

The species Tragopogon miscellus (as defined by the scientists who have studied it the most extensively) formed 20 times in the past 80 years.  The species Tragopogon mirus (as defined by the scientists who have studied it the most extensively) formed 12 times in the past 80 years.  

One of the papers recounting this is entitled "Polyploidy: recurrent formation and genome evolution".  The section describing the above is entitled "Extent of multiple origins".  Source  

These two species (as defined by the scientists who have studied them the most extensively) are undergoing rapid concerted evolution.

The title of the paper documenting this fact is "RAPID CONCERTED EVOLUTION OF NUCLEAR RIBOSOMAL DNA IN TWO ALLOPOLYPLOIDS OF RECENT AND RECURRENT ORIGIN"  Source

I'm not making this stuff up Erasmus!  If you have a problem with their definition of "species", take it up with Soltis and Soltis or Kovarik et al - not me.

--------------
"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: Feb. 22 2009,12:32   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 20 2009,17:11)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,20:05)
For Bill:


Come again?

It's a mechanism for saltational evolution.

--------------
"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: Feb. 22 2009,12:36   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 20 2009,19:12)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,18:30)
What part of that is hypocritical?

The part where you are hypocritical. If you want to read that previous comment over again and see if you can figure it out, I'll wait.  Or I can highlight it again, like this:

Demanding detailed mechanisms, precursors and pathways from others. while allowing yourself to indulge in a mechanism-free, precursor-free and pathway-free exercise in goalpost tectonics is hypocrisy.

If you keep snipping my reasoning for such then - yeah - it looks hypocritical.  If you actually look at my explanation, it then becomes crystal clear that it is consistent reasoning rather than hypocrisy.  I don't expect you to go that far.

Still want to talk about flowers?

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,12:51   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,19:36)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 20 2009,19:12)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,18:30)
What part of that is hypocritical?

The part where you are hypocritical. If you want to read that previous comment over again and see if you can figure it out, I'll wait.  Or I can highlight it again, like this:

Demanding detailed mechanisms, precursors and pathways from others. while allowing yourself to indulge in a mechanism-free, precursor-free and pathway-free exercise in goalpost tectonics is hypocrisy.

If you keep snipping my reasoning for such then - yeah - it looks hypocritical.  If you actually look at my explanation, it then becomes crystal clear that it is consistent reasoning rather than hypocrisy.  I don't expect you to go that far.

Still want to talk about flowers?

Please, don't try to compete with biologists, you don't have the knowledge or the stamina. try to learn something instead, and let the people who have studied these things enlighten you.

I mean, I'm an atheist, but if there really is a life after death, I'd rather spend it in the flames of hell with the likes of Darwin, Caesar and all those who died before your christ came around than with a single one of you "rightful" christians.

Do the math, think for youself, and stop using strawmen.

And about the 10 commandments, I don't know who the hell is this guy "Thou", but his life sounds like shit!*

*General anti-religious offence intended. Blame me, I'm just human!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,12:55   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 22 2009,05:29)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2009,07:43)
mitschlag in particular simpson's account of schindewolf suggests that there are some serious issues with the domain of observations used by schindewolf to support his contentions.  i think SJG goes over this in more detail in "Structure" but I keep forgetting to bring my copy home.  I'll be paying close attention.  This narrative is a great antidote to Popper and Kuhn.

Erasmus, whatever you care to provide from Structure will be welcome.

Your reference to Gould reminded me of his essay Life's Little Joke, which goes well beyond Simpson in demolishing the simplistic sequence portrayed by Schindewolf.  (Gould wrote in 1991 and had in hand much more data than either Schindewolf or Simpson commanded.)  The entire essay - too long to copy and post here - is provided in the link.  Daniel should read it and comprehend it.

Schindewolf is not mentioned at all.  Gould seems to be "demolishing" every simplistic phylogenic tree here - including Simpson's.

One thing you repeatedly fail to mention is that Schindewolf's area of expertise and study was not horses - it was cephalopods and stony corals - for which he documented extensive patterns of evolution.  Horses were a periphery issue for him - one for which he probably accepted the commonly delineated pathway for his day.  

Thus I can understand why you'd want to focus on horses, since - as you've just documented - all Schindewolf's contemporaries missed the mark to a degree, but no discussion of Schindewolf is worth having if it's not about the area he excelled in - cephalopods and stony corals.

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,13:02   

Excuse me, honnest request. I am not familiar with Schindewolf's writings. But, does he get into Stromatolites?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,13:06   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 22 2009,06:41)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 22 2009,08:31)
(For Schindewolfe had to admit that the empirical record revealed no direct evidence at all for a catastrophic mechanism of mass extinction, and he therefore had to seek a potential cause that would leave no testable sign of its operation! Can one possibly imagine an unhappier situation for science? - to face the prospect of a plausible explanation that does not, in principle, leave evidence for its validation.)"

Indeed.

But if that fails, cherry-picking the data is worth trying.

Schindewolf is often faulted (probably rightly so) for his "cosmic radiation" theory of extinction.  I must point out that this was late in his career, as he was advancing in age, and in no way represents Schindewolf in his prime.

Also (again), the horse toes were an example I cited to Alan Fox on Brainstorms.  He chose that example (unfortunately) as the title for the thread when he invited me here.  If you really want to discuss Schindewolf, let's talk about the bulk of the book devoted to cephalopods and stony corals rather than these periphery issues.

--------------
"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: Feb. 22 2009,13:29   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 22 2009,07:05)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,19:30)
My argument is based on life being created by an omniscient God.  My argument is that we mortals will never figure out how he did it.  You all say life is of natural, undirected origins.  You all say we should be able to figure out how it happened.  I'm not the one claiming accidental evolution can build complex living systems - you are.  That's the only reason I'm asking you for mechanisms.

I've consistently said that we'll never figure out how God did it.  What part of that is hypocritical?

Sorry Daniel, this don't fly.

You've postulated that God assembled cells like people assembling automobiles, and stuffed them with frontloaded information that has been unfolding ever since. And you've said we'll never figure out "how he did it." Indeed.

We are asking for your description of WHAT he did. You say he stuffed those cells with machinery like information-bearing DNA and the Krebs cycle, as well as the ability to appropriately deploy new adaptations and preprogrammed body plans. You claim that events such as speciation and the emergence of major biological features reflect the operation of the mechanisms he stuffed in to those cells.

THAT is what we are requesting from you. Describe the mechanisms that God stuffed into those primordial cells that account for these large scale phenomena spanning deep time. Describe how those mechanisms interact with changing environments to assure that adaptive features arise. Unless you are now claiming that God actively intervened at every such event (then why front load?), you still need to supply a description of that mechanism.

Your proposed mechanism should offer an explanation for the timing of saltational events, including divergence of single populations into separate species, the distribution of features among the daughter species, their progressive differentiation, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.

Begging off into mysterian ignorance won't do.

[edits for clarity]

I've got no idea what the actual mechanisms are.  I'm betting they'll be found to be non-random though.  

I've already given evidence for such an event in plants.  

One could also add the nylonase enzyme to the list.  

Then there's the curious case of weedy cress Arabidopsis thaliana:  
Quote
The weeds are somehow inheriting DNA sequences from their grandparents that neither of their parents possessed - which is supposed to be impossible.


 
Quote
It is possible that the phenomenon is limited to this one plant. But in Nature (vol 434, p 505), Pruitt's team speculates that it might be a more widespread mechanism that allows plants to "experiment" with new mutations while keeping RNA spares as a back-up.

If the mutations prove harmful, some plants in the next generation revert to their grandparents' DNA sequence with the help of the RNA. "It does make sense," Pruitt says.


Keeping genetic "backup copies"?  Sounds pre-planned to me.  Of course I'm sure science will eventually be able to explain this via random, undirected evolutionary mechanisms.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,13:36   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,12:36)
If you keep snipping my reasoning for such then - yeah - it looks hypocritical.  If you actually look at my explanation, it then becomes crystal clear that it is consistent reasoning rather than hypocrisy.  I don't expect you to go that far.

I'm not "snipping your reasoning". I'm pointing out the things that you are omitting, i.e. your demands for detailed mechanisms and pathways from the opposite side while settling for a mechanism-free think-poof as your preferred explanation. Your "reasoning" is mere hand-waving and lying by omission; you are only explaining why your side can be mechanism-free, and not bothering to explain your demands of others.

The reason that it looks hypocritical, Daniel, is that it actually is hypocritical.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,13:37   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,12:04)
...science has explained the evolution of exactly zero biological systems.  That's a lot of unanswered questions!

Why do you repeat this assertion when it has been shown to be false?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,14:09   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,14:29)
I've got no idea what the actual mechanisms are.  

But you do not dispute that your argument that "God did it and mere mortals will never figure it out" fails to obviate my request, and Albatrossity's request, for a mechanism. It's an appropriate question. You simply don't have an answer. In short, in a debate in which you assert, "The mechanism for said change is the unsettled point," your "theory" offers no mechanism whatsoever.   

It follows that Albatrossity has correctly characterized you as "settling for a mechanism-free think-poof as your preferred explanation," while demanding of evolutionary biology an inherently unattainable cinematic level of detail.

And I agree: The reason that it looks hypocritical, Daniel, is that it actually is hypocritical.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,14:12   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,13:29)
Of course I'm sure science will eventually be able to explain this via random, undirected evolutionary mechanisms.

If gog did it then you believe that humans will never find out how gog did it.

So, if humanity were to look for an answer you've already given yours.

Thanks.

Zero use.

But thanks anyway.

The best argument in this thread for the side of rationality is you Daniel. A great example of "look what can happen".

Do keep it up dear chap!

Daniel, re: mechanism. You've said you don't know. OK. Guess away. Why did gog wait so long before creating life on Earth? Big expanse of time there before life existed. Long time since the start of the universe. Plenty of other similar planets could have been created by gog long before earth was around.

So, Daniel, was the earth

A) Created (a la hitchhikers)
B) Formed from stuff in space like wot them in the white coats pretend it was, they don't know nuffink them scuentists

?

If
A) why the wait?
B) What, could gog not make it's own planet? Too weedy? Had to wait for one to form randomly?

Etc etc

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,14:15   

BTW Daniel, I'm still interested in your response to this:

With respect to human evolution, you have argued that properties like speech, language, redundancy, culture, powerful learning abilities and design are evidence that human beings arose through special creation. Why is that? After all, for months you have argued that complex biological systems cannot arise by means of selection and instead must have arisen through processes like the saltational triggering of supernaturally frontloaded design - processes that compel the conclusion of common descent.

Why does the emergence of human speech, culture, learning ability, etc. require an even greater leap (from the ancestor we share with chimps and bonobos), than, say, your favorite example of a complex system, the Krebs cycle? A leap that requires rejection of even those processes you have so tediously argued to date - e.g., supernatural frontloading, saltation, etc. - and demands a separate, superdupernatural special creation?

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2009,14:18   

Quote
B) Formed from stuff in space like wot them in the white coats pretend it was, they don't know nuffink them scuentists


Ohhh! pure Pratchett Troll talk. Me likes!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,11:14   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,12:55)
         
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 22 2009,05:29)
             
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 21 2009,07:43)
mitschlag in particular simpson's account of schindewolf suggests that there are some serious issues with the domain of observations used by schindewolf to support his contentions.  i think SJG goes over this in more detail in "Structure" but I keep forgetting to bring my copy home.  I'll be paying close attention.  This narrative is a great antidote to Popper and Kuhn.

Erasmus, whatever you care to provide from Structure will be welcome.

Your reference to Gould reminded me of his essay Life's Little Joke, which goes well beyond Simpson in demolishing the simplistic sequence portrayed by Schindewolf.  (Gould wrote in 1991 and had in hand much more data than either Schindewolf or Simpson commanded.)  The entire essay - too long to copy and post here - is provided in the link.  Daniel should read it and comprehend it.

Schindewolf is not mentioned at all.  Gould seems to be "demolishing" every simplistic phylogenic tree here - including Simpson's.

Exactly!  Need I remind you that that's how SCIENCE works?  (But why the scarequotes around demolishing?  Gould brings evidence to bear on the subject.)
       
Quote
One thing you repeatedly fail to mention is that Schindewolf's area of expertise and study was not horses - it was cephalopods and stony corals - for which he documented extensive patterns of evolution.  Horses were a periphery issue for him - one for which he probably accepted the commonly delineated pathway for his day.  

Thus I can understand why you'd want to focus on horses, since - as you've just documented - all Schindewolf's contemporaries missed the mark to a degree, but no discussion of Schindewolf is worth having if it's not about the area he excelled in - cephalopods and stony corals.

It looks like you're conceding that Schindewolf was wrong about horse evolution being an example of orthogenesis*.  But isn't it significant that in his introduction of the concept, Orthogenesis (Chapter Three, pages 268-272), he cites as examples  ammonites, nautiloids, stony corals, and (drumroll) horses!

I sympathize with the burden you have in dealing with the several lines of inquiry that have been opened among your opponents here, and if you are indeed conceding the horse issue, I am willing to leave unexpressed my further researches into that issue.  But I submit to you that if Schindeowlf's orthogenetic thesis is unsupported by horse evolution, it casts grave doubt on the viability of the theory as an alternative to random mutation + natural selection.

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis
     
Quote
Orthogenesis, orthogenetic evolution, progressive evolution or autogenesis, is the hypothesis that life has an innate tendency to move in a unilinear fashion due to some internal or external "driving force". The hypothesis is based on essentialism and cosmic teleology and proposes an intrinsic drive which slowly transforms species. George Gaylord Simpson (1953) in an attack on orthogenesis called this mechanism "the mysterious inner force". Classic proponents of orthogenesis have rejected the theory of natural selection as the organising mechanism in evolution, and theories of speciation for a rectilinear model of guided evolution acting on discrete species with "essences"

(If you can find a better definition in Grundfragen, please provide it.)

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,16:21   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,12:55)

One thing you repeatedly fail to mention is that Schindewolf's area of expertise and study was not horses - it was cephalopods and stony corals - for which he documented extensive patterns of evolution.  Horses were a periphery issue for him - one for which he probably accepted the commonly delineated pathway for his day.  

Thus I can understand why you'd want to focus on horses, since - as you've just documented - all Schindewolf's contemporaries missed the mark to a degree, but no discussion of Schindewolf is worth having if it's not about the area he excelled in - cephalopods and stony corals.

Daniel, please, enough with the ad hominems.  I'm working here in good faith.  You want to discuss cephalopods and stony corals, we'll discuss them.

Here is what Schindewolf says on pages 269-270:
   
Quote
Examples of Orthogenesis
       
        In ammonites, after the frilling of the suture has been introduced as a fundamentally new process, it continues to develop step by step until the last tiny bit of lobe and saddle margin is broken up into extremely fine teeth and notches. Further, as soon as the principle of the differentiation of the suture line through saddle splitting has been acquired, it is unswervingly pursued, and one by one,one after another, new lobal elements are emplaced. This saddle splitting may affect different saddles, either the inner or the outer ones; at first, the choice was open. But after the decision was made in favor of one site or the other, further development was inevitable, preordained. The same is true for the increase in the number of lobal elements through lobe splitting. Once this mode had been “invented” by a particular form, its descendants carried it on; the mode prevailed, and there was no stopping it, no going back, and no breaking away from the evolutionary direction once it was established.

          In the nautiloids and the ammonoids, the coiling of the shell progressed in an orderly way. in the process, however, a decided difference appeared between the two groups, as we have seen (figs. 3.34 and 3.35): in the ammonoids, the axis of  coiling runs through the protoconch, located at the center of the shell; in the nautiloids, however, the protoconch is eccentric, lying next to the axis of the shell. Thus, the further course of evolution is dictated in advance by the respective initial forms: as the move toward ever tighter coiling progressed, the protoconch of the ammonoids had to participate in the process and acquired a spiral torsion; in contrast, in the nautiloids, in order to arrive at as tightly closed a spiral as possible, one with no perforation, the protoconch had to become increasingly smaller and assume a flat, cowled form. Once the preconditions were established, no other mechanical possibilities were open to the protoconch, and we then see evolution proceeding in a straight line along the path marked out for it.

          The unfolding of the stony corals is dominated by a progressive replacement of the original bilateral  arrangement of the septal apparatuses by a radial one (fig. 3.46). The direction of this course is determined ahead of time by the decidedly hexamerous stage of the six protosepta, which makes a temporary appearance early in the ontogeny of the pterocorals. Thus, the structural design of the lineage is laid down from the beginning and is executed as a complete, pure realization of this hexamerous emplacement by suppression and progressive dissolution of the bilateral features, which at first dominated the mature stages of the pterocorals. In those mature stages, as we recall, only four quadrants were completely developed, and remarkably, this peculiarity was also passed on to the heterocorals, which issued from the pterocorals, as a general morphological capability, although there, it was carried out in a completely different way.

I have bolded sections that trouble me.  Can you guess why I'm troubled?

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,17:08   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 23 2009,17:21)
I have bolded sections that trouble me.  Can you guess why I'm troubled?

What I find interesting in these passages, and the above juxtaposition of Schindewolfe and Stephen Jay Gould, is that one of Gould's abiding interests was the impact of developmental constraints upon the course of evolution - as distinct from panadaptionists who attribute to natural selection the ability to sculpt any form. He argued that species do, in fact, sometimes become constrained to follow certain evolutionary pathways once committed to those pathways - not by dint of such a pathway being fore-ordained, but rather as a result of commitment to a developmental plan that limited the options for further evolution. He was one of the first to recognize the importance of evo-devo in providing both opportunities and constraints in the large scale patterns observed in evolution, a recognition displayed in his 1985 book Ontogeny and Phylogeny. This is certainly a major theme of The Brick.

Many of the patterns that Schindewolfe attributed to "planning" are much more elegantly explained by these ideas. Ironically, this is also the theme of his essay and book "The Panda's Thumb." Seems to me there is a blog that borrowed that title.

Daniel, if you weren't wedded to placing conclusion before evidence, and were really interested in understanding the history of life, particularly large scale patterns such as identified but misattributed by Schindewolfe, you would find Gould a very interesting read.

[developmentally constrained edits]

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,17:51   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 22 2009,11:36)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,12:36)
If you keep snipping my reasoning for such then - yeah - it looks hypocritical.  If you actually look at my explanation, it then becomes crystal clear that it is consistent reasoning rather than hypocrisy.  I don't expect you to go that far.

I'm not "snipping your reasoning". I'm pointing out the things that you are omitting, i.e. your demands for detailed mechanisms and pathways from the opposite side while settling for a mechanism-free think-poof as your preferred explanation. Your "reasoning" is mere hand-waving and lying by omission; you are only explaining why your side can be mechanism-free, and not bothering to explain your demands of others.

The reason that it looks hypocritical, Daniel, is that it actually is hypocritical.


I'm not the one claiming that life's organizational complexity came about via a series of knowable steps.  I'm the one claiming that the origins of life's complex organization are unknowable.  Does this help you understand why I'm asking you for the mechanism for these knowable steps while I don't demand the same from myself?

If not, then re-read the first two sentences until it sinks in.

--------------
"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: Feb. 23 2009,17:59   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 22 2009,11:37)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,12:04)
...science has explained the evolution of exactly zero biological systems.  That's a lot of unanswered questions!

Why do you repeat this assertion when it has been shown to be false?

It has not been shown to be false.

Explain to me the exact processes that produced the new complex organization in the Tragopogon species and then you'll show my assertion to be false.

So far, all we've got is allopolyploid speciation.
What genes were expressed/repressed?  What enzymes were involved and how were they created?  How are the biochemical pathways regulated and where did this regulation come from?  Is there really anything new here - or is this what you'll always get when you throw these two genomes together?

There are lots of questions to ask if you care to ask them.

--------------
"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: Feb. 23 2009,18:04   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 22 2009,12:15)
BTW Daniel, I'm still interested in your response to this:

With respect to human evolution, you have argued that properties like speech, language, redundancy, culture, powerful learning abilities and design are evidence that human beings arose through special creation. Why is that? After all, for months you have argued that complex biological systems cannot arise by means of selection and instead must have arisen through processes like the saltational triggering of supernaturally frontloaded design - processes that compel the conclusion of common descent.

Why does the emergence of human speech, culture, learning ability, etc. require an even greater leap (from the ancestor we share with chimps and bonobos), than, say, your favorite example of a complex system, the Krebs cycle? A leap that requires rejection of even those processes you have so tediously argued to date - e.g., supernatural frontloading, saltation, etc. - and demands a separate, superdupernatural special creation?

It may not "demand" it Bill.

Man may very well be the product of saltational evolution.

I've already said that it's my bias that leads me to doubt common descent when it comes to man.  The reasons I gave - speech, learning, etc - were my personal reasons for doubting common descent.  I (as you know) may be wrong.

--------------
"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: Feb. 23 2009,18:40   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 23 2009,14:21)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,12:55)

One thing you repeatedly fail to mention is that Schindewolf's area of expertise and study was not horses - it was cephalopods and stony corals - for which he documented extensive patterns of evolution.  Horses were a periphery issue for him - one for which he probably accepted the commonly delineated pathway for his day.  

Thus I can understand why you'd want to focus on horses, since - as you've just documented - all Schindewolf's contemporaries missed the mark to a degree, but no discussion of Schindewolf is worth having if it's not about the area he excelled in - cephalopods and stony corals.

Daniel, please, enough with the ad hominems.  I'm working here in good faith.  You want to discuss cephalopods and stony corals, we'll discuss them.

Here is what Schindewolf says on pages 269-270:
             
Quote
Examples of Orthogenesis
       
        In ammonites, after the frilling of the suture has been introduced as a fundamentally new process, it continues to develop step by step until the last tiny bit of lobe and saddle margin is broken up into extremely fine teeth and notches. Further, as soon as the principle of the differentiation of the suture line through saddle splitting has been acquired, it is unswervingly pursued, and one by one,one after another, new lobal elements are emplaced. This saddle splitting may affect different saddles, either the inner or the outer ones; at first, the choice was open. But after the decision was made in favor of one site or the other, further development was inevitable, preordained. The same is true for the increase in the number of lobal elements through lobe splitting. Once this mode had been “invented” by a particular form, its descendants carried it on; the mode prevailed, and there was no stopping it, no going back, and no breaking away from the evolutionary direction once it was established.

          In the nautiloids and the ammonoids, the coiling of the shell progressed in an orderly way. in the process, however, a decided difference appeared between the two groups, as we have seen (figs. 3.34 and 3.35): in the ammonoids, the axis of  coiling runs through the protoconch, located at the center of the shell; in the nautiloids, however, the protoconch is eccentric, lying next to the axis of the shell. Thus, the further course of evolution is dictated in advance by the respective initial forms: as the move toward ever tighter coiling progressed, the protoconch of the ammonoids had to participate in the process and acquired a spiral torsion; in contrast, in the nautiloids, in order to arrive at as tightly closed a spiral as possible, one with no perforation, the protoconch had to become increasingly smaller and assume a flat, cowled form. Once the preconditions were established, no other mechanical possibilities were open to the protoconch, and we then see evolution proceeding in a straight line along the path marked out for it.

          The unfolding of the stony corals is dominated by a progressive replacement of the original bilateral  arrangement of the septal apparatuses by a radial one (fig. 3.46). The direction of this course is determined ahead of time by the decidedly hexamerous stage of the six protosepta, which makes a temporary appearance early in the ontogeny of the pterocorals. Thus, the structural design of the lineage is laid down from the beginning and is executed as a complete, pure realization of this hexamerous emplacement by suppression and progressive dissolution of the bilateral features, which at first dominated the mature stages of the pterocorals. In those mature stages, as we recall, only four quadrants were completely developed, and remarkably, this peculiarity was also passed on to the heterocorals, which issued from the pterocorals, as a general morphological capability, although there, it was carried out in a completely different way.

I have bolded sections that trouble me.  Can you guess why I'm troubled?

Probably because you stopped reading.

On page 272 he continues:
       
Quote
The unwary observer could easily form the impression that evolution is purposeful, that right from the beginning it is directed toward a predetermined goal and that the path it follows is determined by the goal.  Such a finalistic explanation, however cannot be seriously supported; there is no basis for it in natural science, and the observed facts do not warrant it in the least.

Rather things are just the opposite, in that it is not the conceptual final point but the concrete starting point that determines and brings about the orientation of evolution.  Such a view can be based on actual, causative mechanisms and does not take refuge in mystical principles of any kind.  The explanation lies in the fact that the set of rudiments in the first representatives of each lineage largely determines later evolution, and that subsequent differentiational steps entail a progressive narrowing of evolutionary creative potential
[italics his]

I don't agree with Schindewolf on this point, but he is basing his argument on "natural science", while I am basing mine on theology.

The question you are asking is whether the actual evidence supports orthogenesis or not.  As you know, Schindewolf cataloged volumes of evidence which he thought supported such an interpretation.  Others think differently.  I don't know that horse evolution proves or disproves either conclusion.  Gould seemed much more concerned with all the branches on the evolutionary tree while Schindewolf seemed intent on the specific lineage that led to the North American Horse.

Orthogenesis is not the main issue for me - although I'm inclined to believe it is a real phenomenon.  Schindewolf, as you know, felt that evolution could be divided into three phases.  He did not believe the first phase - the saltational typogenesis - to be constrained by orthogenetic forces.  That is the phase of evolution I am most concerned about - the saltational, creative phase.

--------------
"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: Feb. 23 2009,18:43   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 23 2009,15:08)
 
Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 23 2009,17:21)
I have bolded sections that trouble me.  Can you guess why I'm troubled?

What I find interesting in these passages, and the above juxtaposition of Schindewolfe and Stephen Jay Gould, is that one of Gould's abiding interests was the impact of developmental constraints upon the course of evolution - as distinct from panadaptionists who attribute to natural selection the ability to sculpt any form. He argued that species do, in fact, sometimes become constrained to follow certain evolutionary pathways once committed to those pathways - not by dint of such a pathway being fore-ordained, but rather as a result of commitment to a developmental plan that limited the options for further evolution. He was one of the first to recognize the importance of evo-devo in providing both opportunities and constraints in the large scale patterns observed in evolution, a recognition displayed in his 1985 book Ontogeny and Phylogeny. This was certainly a major theme of The Brick.

Many of the patterns that Schindewolfe attributed to "planning" are much more elegantly explained by these ideas. Ironically, this is also the theme of his essay and book "The Panda's Thumb." Seems to me there is a blog that borrowed that title.

Daniel, if you weren't wedded to placing conclusion before evidence, and were really interested in understanding the history of life, particularly large scale patterns such as identified but misattributed by Schindewolfe, you would find Gould a very interesting read.

[developmentally constrained edits]

Bill,

Perhaps if you knew a bit more about Schindewolf, you'd appreciate where Gould got his ideas from (see above).

--------------
"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: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,18:45   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 23 2009,18:51)
I'm not the one claiming that life's organizational complexity came about via a series of knowable steps.  I'm the one claiming that the origins of life's complex organization are unknowable.  Does this help you understand why I'm asking you for the mechanism for these knowable steps while I don't demand the same from myself?

Let's review.

- Your theory requires the supernatural.
- It is incapable of generating testable hypotheses.
- It is no help in guiding empirical research.
- It specifies the occurrence of particular material events - such as saltations driven by stored cellular mechanisms. These material events should be, at least in principle, explicable. Yet your theory has absolutely nothing to say about the causal basis for such events.  
- It explains absolutely nothing regarding patterns of evolutionary events observed and inferred in nature, such as the cause and timing of the emergence of species, the distribution of features, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.
- It denies mountains of settled science.
- It has nothing to say about human origins other than, "It could be this, or it could be that."

In short, a you are entranced by a supernatural theory that has no scientific value, has no content, and explains nothing.

You can repeat your retreat into mysterian ignorance as often as you like Daniel. It still don't fly. Yours is a ridiculous double standard that deserves the scorn it has received.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,22:01   

Quote
(Daniel Smith @ Feb. 23 2009,18:51)
I'm not the one claiming that life's organizational complexity came about via a series of knowable steps.  I'm the one claiming that the origins of life's complex organization are unknowable.  Does this help you understand why I'm asking you for the mechanism for these knowable steps while I don't demand the same from myself?

I doubt there's anybody here who doesn't realize why you're doing that.

But still, your prediction is that there are some questions that will never be answered? Which ones? How can that be determined? More questions get answered by research all the time, but some stay unanswered for a long time after asking. So, if some of today's unanswered questions stay on that list tomorrow, there's nothing to flag that as unusual.

There's also a more fundamental problem: the assertion that life was deliberately engineered does not necessarily imply that the mechanisms used to do that can't be understood, or that there aren't other mechanisms that could produce similar results. You're arguing a conclusion that doesn't follow from your premise.

Henry

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,22:06   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 23 2009,17:51)
I'm not the one claiming that life's organizational complexity came about via a series of knowable steps.  I'm the one claiming that the origins of life's complex organization are unknowable.  Does this help you understand why I'm asking you for the mechanism for these knowable steps while I don't demand the same from myself?

If not, then re-read the first two sentences until it sinks in.

Knowable is not the same thing as known. You are demanding that someone show you ALL the steps, and demanding nothing at all from your "theory". That is why you are a hypocrite, and why you get no respect here.

Secondly, you really really really should not bring up the word "mechanism". The mechanisms (note the plural) that result in evolution are known AND knowable. Your "theory" has NO mechanism that you have bothered to explicate here. So you lose. Again. You are a hypocrite. Again.

Read that over again until it sinks in.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2009,22:16   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 23 2009,17:59)
It has not been shown to be false.

Explain to me the exact processes that produced the new complex organization in the Tragopogon species and then you'll show my assertion to be false.

So far, all we've got is allopolyploid speciation.
What genes were expressed/repressed?  What enzymes were involved and how were they created?  How are the biochemical pathways regulated and where did this regulation come from?  Is there really anything new here - or is this what you'll always get when you throw these two genomes together?

There are lots of questions to ask if you care to ask them.

You have, in this very thread, conceded that the novel Tragopogon species meet your original criteria. I won't bother to document your inability to keep the goalposts in place.

The mechanisms have yet to be worked out in the detail that you demand (for others, but not for yourself), but there is no reason (other than your blinders) to assume that natural processes, known to science, can explain it. You do not need to invoke anything special, nor anything supernatural, to get there. Furthermore it matters not a bit if this is what you "always get", or if it happens once and never again. That is another goalpost on the move.

And the only question that needs to be asked are the ones you have avoided all along. What mechanisms would you use to explain these observations, and what is the evidence for your position? You clearly have issues with the way the Soltis team is trying to explain the observations, but you don't have anything positive to add to the discussion at all.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,03:10   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 23 2009,22:16)
   You clearly have issues with the way the Soltis team is trying to explain the observations, but you don't have anything positive to add to the discussion at all.

And there lies the rub eh Daniel?

Until you can write, publish and defend your own paper that explains the observations in hand from your perspective then you will be limited to flailing about here repeating "not enough detail, I still believe in gop" forever.

Amusing, no?

These questions
   
Quote

What genes were expressed/repressed?  What enzymes were involved and how were they created?  How are the biochemical pathways regulated and where did this regulation come from?

Are ones amenable to study. Why don't you apply for a grant from the DI? You might find, however, you are taking on more then you can deal with currently  ;)

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,03:35   

Quote
he is basing his argument on "natural science", while I am basing mine on theology.

That about settles it, doesn’t it? Next candidate, please.

But before you leave, is it too much to ask that you reply to my plea here?
I believe it was a honest question that deserve a honest answer; you are quite good at demanding answers yourself.

Seems you have plenty of time for your wild crusade here, you could give me five minutes too? Maybe we should discuss theology, you and me? Isn’t that a subject much closer to your heart than evolutionary science? Which besides also, if I have understood you right, is a much more important and relevant issue? Albright, you have got theology sorted out beyond any doubt; but you ought to be aware that just as you never will be able to admit that science may be right because that would mean the death of your God; there are just as valid, yeah, even more valid reasons for serious doubts about your theology – and those doubts have been researched and documented at large by researchers that I consider more reliable and much more knowledgeable on the subject than you.

Let’s start with the bible – to begin with its origins, like who wrote what, for what reasons.

Has it never occurred to you that theology is about the poorest thinkable foundation for scientific enquiry?

But I know you are unable to answer, just as I never get any replies from Ray Martinez at t.o.; his arguments are transparent to me.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,04:13   

Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

This is the way we do some science,
Do some science, do some science.
This is the way we do some science,
So early Monday morning.

This is when Dan denies the facts,
Denies the facts, denies the facts.
This is when Dan denies the facts,
So early Tuesday morning.

This is how flowers evolve new things,
Evolve new things, evolve new things.
This is how flowers evolve new things,
So early Wednesday morning.

This is when Dan tries mystery,
Mystery, mystery.
This is when Dan tries mystery,
So early Thursday morning.

Here are some citrate eating bugs,
Eating bugs, eating bugs.
Here are some citrate eating bugs,
So early Friday morning.

This is when Dan appeals to faith,
Appeals to faith, appeals to faith.
This is when Dan appeals to faith,
So early Saturday morning.

This is the way we get pissed off,
Get pissed off, get pissed off.
This is the way we get pissed off,
So early Sunday morning.

Apologies again! (ignorance swapped for mystery, it's more appropriatre this time)

Bill's summary is far more polite than mine, and worth repeating, a lot:

 
Quote
Let's review.

- Your theory requires the supernatural.
- It is incapable of generating testable hypotheses.
- It is no help in guiding empirical research.
- It specifies the occurrence of particular material events - such as saltations driven by stored cellular mechanisms. These material events should be, at least in principle, explicable. Yet your theory has absolutely nothing to say about the causal basis for such events.  
- It explains absolutely nothing regarding patterns of evolutionary events observed and inferred in nature, such as the cause and timing of the emergence of species, the distribution of features, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.
- It denies mountains of settled science.
- It has nothing to say about human origins other than, "It could be this, or it could be that."

In short, a you are entranced by a supernatural theory that has no scientific value, has no content, and explains nothing.

You can repeat your retreat into mysterian ignorance as often as you like Daniel. It still don't fly. Yours is a ridiculous double standard that deserves the scorn it has received.


And this from Denial is as usual, very illuminating of his mind-fuck:

 
Quote
I'm not the one claiming that life's organizational complexity came about via a series of knowable steps.  I'm the one claiming that the origins of life's complex organization are unknowable.  Does this help you understand why I'm asking you for the mechanism for these knowable steps while I don't demand the same from myself?

If not, then re-read the first two sentences until it sinks in.


This is CLASSIC shifting of the burden of proof. The translation is simple and hilarious (to me at least):

"I don't like the consilient, well documented picture of the world presented by science and so I propose a different (incoherent) one that has no evidence to support it at all. I don't have to provide any evidence for my ideas, it's up to you to prove me wrong."

I have tired of this and therefore, Captain Louis is putting on his mean hat and we are going to MockCon 4. What's the betting the point of this sledgehammer subtle satire is missed?

{ahem}

Here is my theory, the theory that is mine, it is my theory, which I call my theory {ahem}, here we go, this is my theory:

I'm not the one claiming that Daniel Smith is not a child molester.  I'm the one claiming that Daniel Smith not being a child molester is unknowable.  Does this help you understand why I'm asking you for the photos showing that Daniel Smith is not a child molester while I don't demand the same from myself?

If not, then re-read the first two sentences until it sinks in.


Therefore I can calmly assert that it is not knowable that Daniel Smith is not a child molester, therefore because it's SO COMPLEX to get all the data together to show this (and I believe it cannot be done), and because my special book on Child Molesting via Numerology tells me that the name "Daniel Smith" actually means "Kiddy Fiddler" in Klingon, and because I look around me at the world and it is SO COMPLEX that it MUST be the case that Daniel Smith is a child molester.

I am disgusted to be sharing a message board with someone who so callously diddles kiddies. It's just horrible, and socially degrading dontcherknow. I DEMAND that Daniel Smith show me evidence that he is NOT a child molester right now, or I will be proven correct that it is not knowable that he is not a child molester and I shall call for his arrest.

Louis

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,06:37   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 24 2009,05:13)
I'm not the one claiming that Daniel Smith is not a child molester.  I'm the one claiming that Daniel Smith not being a child molester is unknowable.  Does this help you understand why I'm asking you for the photos showing that Daniel Smith is not a child molester while I don't demand the same from myself?

If not, then re-read the first two sentences until it sinks in.

(Based on very special personal experiences that Louis isn't ready to discuss) :O

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,06:51   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 22 2009,12:29)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 20 2009,23:03)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 20 2009,18:13)
             
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 19 2009,16:38)
bwaha

you're a fraud denial.  there is interesting science in that paper but you wanna blather about crap

I'm still waiting for you to answer this question:                    
Quote
So these species [Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus] not only have multiple recurrent origins, they also evolve concurrently afterward.  How much of this still sounds random to you?

As I said, you wish to blather about crap.

There is a strong argument to be made that, despite their apparent morphological similarity, individuals from separate polyploidy events in separate populations are not members of the 'same' species.  they have unique evolutionary histories and independent evolutionary trajectories.  Since your species concept involves whatever Noah carried off the ark, it is not surprising you have failed to grasp this point.  I'll play this stupid game with you IFF you explicate and defend your species concept. You won't do it because you are not genuinely interested in these arguments as anything but cover for We Don't Know Yet = goddidit.

what a fucking moron.  

if you think the formation of allopolyploids has some determinate component, by all means do share instead of pissing on the rug.  You have yet to formulate anything even remotely resembling a testable claim here, so here is your shot.  

           
Quote
So these species [Tragopogon miscellus and T. mirus] not only have multiple recurrent origins, they also evolve concurrently afterward.  How much of this still sounds random to you?


The answer to the question is            
Quote
That Doesn't Seem To Be Anything But Random To Me But Perhaps Jesus Teh Designer is whispering something in your ear that he is not whispering into mine, so why don't you share instead of braying like a fucking donkey about shit you know nothing about and aren't interested in learning, just using as an apologetic crutch for spreading your particular brand of stupid blinkered wankery?


Denial do you know how people evaluate the claim that X is random with respect to Y?  Not by stupid false equivalences, for one.

The evidence speaks for itself Erasmus:

The species Tragopogon miscellus (as defined by the scientists who have studied it the most extensively) formed 20 times in the past 80 years.  The species Tragopogon mirus (as defined by the scientists who have studied it the most extensively) formed 12 times in the past 80 years.  

One of the papers recounting this is entitled "Polyploidy: recurrent formation and genome evolution".  The section describing the above is entitled "Extent of multiple origins".  Source  

These two species (as defined by the scientists who have studied them the most extensively) are undergoing rapid concerted evolution.

The title of the paper documenting this fact is "RAPID CONCERTED EVOLUTION OF NUCLEAR RIBOSOMAL DNA IN TWO ALLOPOLYPLOIDS OF RECENT AND RECURRENT ORIGIN"  Source

I'm not making this stuff up Erasmus!  If you have a problem with their definition of "species", take it up with Soltis and Soltis or Kovarik et al - not me.

Denial don't flatter yourself.  

No one on the planet is going to take it up with you.  Your views on biology are meaningless and uninformed, driven solely by an a priori conclusion that Jesus whispered in your ear when you had a boner in the church pew.

You have 12 similar species forming in 80 years, not single species formed 12 times.  They may not be reproductively isolated from each other, yet, but as we have shown that is not difficult to achieve by drift or different selection regimes.

yet you, of the biblical 'kinds', why them thangs can't evolve god dun that, show me an atom, solipcist garden variety creationist, don't understand why they cannot be conspecifics under any rational and realistic species concept.  big fucking surprise.

science performed under morphological/typological species concepts gets published every day.  that doesn't always make it bullshit.  the point of the problem is to consider the implications of using different concepts.

The species concept used in this paper is fraught with error.  It doesn't allow for evolution, it is a morphological type concept.  I don't understand you to know that, nor do I care enough to inform your ignorant ass, as defined by those who study you most extensively.

ALL OF THIS IS LOST ON YOU SO FUCK OFF  at least until you show an inkling of understanding about the issue, and not "the premier paleontologist in Uzbekistan says different, who are you?"  or "these are the people who study this the most, surely theeeeeeeeey'd know" when you think scientists are all liars anyway.

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

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

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

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,07:06   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 24 2009,12:37)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 24 2009,05:13)
I'm not the one claiming that Daniel Smith is not a child molester.  I'm the one claiming that Daniel Smith not being a child molester is unknowable.  Does this help you understand why I'm asking you for the photos showing that Daniel Smith is not a child molester while I don't demand the same from myself?

If not, then re-read the first two sentences until it sinks in.

(Based on very special personal experiences that Louis isn't ready to discuss) :O

I was sexually assaulted when I was in the first grade, after a game of kiss chase, but I liked it. Hey, she was good looking for a second grader.

Wait, doesn't that count?*

Louis

*Standard disclaimer: I in no way wish to make light of the plight of people who have suffered genuine child abuse. I am using a deliberately humorous and vulgar parody of Denial's drivel to beat him over the head with.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,07:13   

Oh wait time warp tard trap!  goody goody

Denial, despite much special pleading, has been unable to demonstrate that he does not molest children.  In fact, none of the evidence he has discussed could ever possibly disprove the fact that he is a child molester.  I say that it is a fact because it can never be disproven, until the end of time, because in fact he is a child molester.

If he is not, then let him prove it.  But with direct evidence, and not the appeals to authority and quoting men of straw standing on houses of cards beating dead horses with red herrings.

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,07:18   

It's like this:

If a father found out his 15 year old son was nailing his hot 24 year old female teacher, that'll be a "chip off of the old block".

If a father found out his 15 year old daughter was being repeatedly raped by her hunky 24 yer old male teacher, the mother f*cker's life would be measured in pain.

As a dad, I completely understand that sentiment.  But I ask myself, why are they different?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,09:40   

I'm not going to grant Daniel whoever he is a civil reply.

He is a time wasting dead shit.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,10:31   

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 24 2009,13:18)
It's like this:

If a father found out his 15 year old son was nailing his hot 24 year old female teacher, that'll be a "chip off of the old block".

If a father found out his 15 year old daughter was being repeatedly raped by her hunky 24 yer old male teacher, the mother f*cker's life would be measured in pain.

As a dad, I completely understand that sentiment.  But I ask myself, why are they different?

One of these things is not like the other.

Try this:

If a father found out his 15 year old son was being repeatedly raped by his hot 24 year old female teacher, that'll be a "chip off of the old block".

If a father found out his 15 year old daughter was being repeatedly, consensually nailed by her hunky 24 yer old male teacher, the mother f*cker's life would be measured in pain.

Whaddya think?

In all cases (both yours and my switched cases) the teachers are exploiting the kids. It's a major breach of trust and misuse of authority in each case. Serious censure is deserved in both cases (whether or not it involves pain).

People under the legal age of consent (16 here in the UK btw*) have sexual feelings and have sex (I know I did!). If they are being exploited/coerced/forced against their will by anyone (over or under the age of consent) then THAT is the time to break out the pain.

If they are not being exploited/coerced/forced against their will by anyone (over or under the age of consent) then THAT is the time to hold the pain in reserve until you make sure that ain't happening.

If the kid concerned is not being exploited/coerced/forced against their will by someone roughly their own age AND under the age of consent themselves, then it's time to break out the lengthy discussions, documentaries, contraception demonstrations, and all round general support. Sex positive =/= encouraging promiscuity. Kids = people. Kids =/= stupid.

This derail is infinitely more interesting than Denial's bullshit. At least there's a chance it'll end in something productive.

Louis

*I love the fact that in the USA you can be in charge of a potentially lethal weapon (a car) before you can be in charge of your own genitals, and that you can go to war but not have a beer to celebrate survival! Also, what the fuck (literally) do people think that under age kids are doing in those cars? They drive off and fuck. Silver ring or not. The second I got my driver's licence (17 in the UK) my sex life took a turn for the better more frequent.

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,11:33   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 24 2009,10:31)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 24 2009,13:18)
It's like this:

If a father found out his 15 year old son was nailing his hot 24 year old female teacher, that'll be a "chip off of the old block".

If a father found out his 15 year old daughter was being repeatedly raped by her hunky 24 yer old male teacher, the mother f*cker's life would be measured in pain.

As a dad, I completely understand that sentiment.  But I ask myself, why are they different?

One of these things is not like the other.

Try this:

If a father found out his 15 year old son was being repeatedly raped by his hot 24 year old female teacher, that'll be a "chip off of the old block".

If a father found out his 15 year old daughter was being repeatedly, consensually nailed by her hunky 24 yer old male teacher, the mother f*cker's life would be measured in pain.

Whaddya think?

In all cases (both yours and my switched cases) the teachers are exploiting the kids. It's a major breach of trust and misuse of authority in each case. Serious censure is deserved in both cases (whether or not it involves pain).

People under the legal age of consent (16 here in the UK btw*) have sexual feelings and have sex (I know I did!). If they are being exploited/coerced/forced against their will by anyone (over or under the age of consent) then THAT is the time to break out the pain.

If they are not being exploited/coerced/forced against their will by anyone (over or under the age of consent) then THAT is the time to hold the pain in reserve until you make sure that ain't happening.

If the kid concerned is not being exploited/coerced/forced against their will by someone roughly their own age AND under the age of consent themselves, then it's time to break out the lengthy discussions, documentaries, contraception demonstrations, and all round general support. Sex positive =/= encouraging promiscuity. Kids = people. Kids =/= stupid.

This derail is infinitely more interesting than Denial's bullshit. At least there's a chance it'll end in something productive.

Louis

*I love the fact that in the USA you can be in charge of a potentially lethal weapon (a car) before you can be in charge of your own genitals, and that you can go to war but not have a beer to celebrate survival! Also, what the fuck (literally) do people think that under age kids are doing in those cars? They drive off and fuck. Silver ring or not. The second I got my driver's licence (17 in the UK) my sex life took a turn for the better more frequent.

You're correct on two accounts here.  This is much than Denial's stuff.  Secondly you are correct in the content of your post.  That's why I specifically worded it the way I did.

Even the late, great George Carlin remarked that he didn't want to call 14 year old boys who were nailing (where I got my terminology) the gorgeous blond 25 year old female teachers "victims".  He wanted to call them "lucky bastards".

You are also correct in pointing out that the abuse of authority is what is really at issue in a student-teacher relationship.  That is not the case if, and it happened to me and mine, where you're at a company gathering and a young coworker, say 25 but looks like he's still in High School, tries to pick up your 15 year old daughter.

Now I wasn't upset with him for these reasons:

1:  Despite being 15 my youngest looks, talks and acts much older.

2:  The kid had no idea she was my daughter.

3:  She was coy in her responses (she thought him cute) and didn't reveal her age.

4:  He had no clue she was 15.

5:  My daughter looks older than a few of the young ladies at my work.

When he found out he backed off.  He was disappointed to say the least but he was "not as interested".

What is the problem is when you have a person who only goes after young kids or is in a position of authority over them and knows who they are.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,11:38   

yeah the thing is Loose doesn't even care if they are still warm.  age is irrelevant, and old age just contributes to the yummy cheese factor.

THE FACT REMAINS that under Denial's epistemology*, Denial can never demonstrate to his desired level of detail that he is not a child molestor and therefore we must consider him one** until he does.

* that's why this is relevant to this thread

** calm down arden, take the diaper off, spit out the pacifier, and remember that you are in a public library for chrissakes

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

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

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

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,11:46   

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 24 2009,17:33)
[SNIP Agreement!]

What is the problem is when you have a person who only goes after young kids or is in a position of authority over them and knows who they are.

Yup and that is where "effective countermeasures" can be brought in. Be they "stern talking to", "therapy" or "swift work with some pruning shears".

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,11:47   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 24 2009,17:38)
yeah the thing is Loose doesn't even care if they are still warm.  age is irrelevant, and old age just contributes to the yummy cheese factor.

[SNIP]

Not true and *I* do have photos.....

Louis

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

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,16:15   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 23 2009,18:40)
I don't agree with Schindewolf on this point, but he is basing his argument on "natural science", while I am basing mine on theology.

The question you are asking is whether the actual evidence supports orthogenesis or not.  As you know, Schindewolf cataloged volumes of evidence which he thought supported such an interpretation.  Others think differently.  I don't know that horse evolution proves or disproves either conclusion.  Gould seemed much more concerned with all the branches on the evolutionary tree while Schindewolf seemed intent on the specific lineage that led to the North American Horse.

Orthogenesis is not the main issue for me - although I'm inclined to believe it is a real phenomenon.  Schindewolf, as you know, felt that evolution could be divided into three phases.  He did not believe the first phase - the saltational typogenesis - to be constrained by orthogenetic forces.  That is the phase of evolution I am most concerned about - the saltational, creative phase.

Well that's just dandy.

So, what exactly are we all supposed to learn from reading Schindewolf, Berg, Goldschmidt, Davison, etc.?

That current evolutionary science is bunk?*

Please either state your thesis or desist from claiming that we are missing something significant by not having read the works of these authors.

*Why do I think that's the point?

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,16:29   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 24 2009,03:35)
Has it never occurred to you that theology is about the poorest thinkable foundation for scientific enquiry?

Oh, I don't know.  There must be something less useful.

Wishful thinking?

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,16:31   

i've never been clear on what exactly is the difference, there.

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

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,16:50   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 24 2009,16:31)
i've never been clear on what exactly is the difference, there.

Isn't it obvious?  Theology is scholarly wishful thinking.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,17:27   

ahhhh i get it.  wishful thinking with a sweater on



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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,18:14   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 23 2009,16:45)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 23 2009,18:51)
I'm not the one claiming that life's organizational complexity came about via a series of knowable steps.  I'm the one claiming that the origins of life's complex organization are unknowable.  Does this help you understand why I'm asking you for the mechanism for these knowable steps while I don't demand the same from myself?

Let's review.

- Your theory requires the supernatural.
- It is incapable of generating testable hypotheses.
- It is no help in guiding empirical research.
- It specifies the occurrence of particular material events - such as saltations driven by stored cellular mechanisms. These material events should be, at least in principle, explicable. Yet your theory has absolutely nothing to say about the causal basis for such events.  
- It explains absolutely nothing regarding patterns of evolutionary events observed and inferred in nature, such as the cause and timing of the emergence of species, the distribution of features, the fact of their adaptation to changing environmental circumstances, and so forth.
- It denies mountains of settled science.
- It has nothing to say about human origins other than, "It could be this, or it could be that."

In short, a you are entranced by a supernatural theory that has no scientific value, has no content, and explains nothing.

You can repeat your retreat into mysterian ignorance as often as you like Daniel. It still don't fly. Yours is a ridiculous double standard that deserves the scorn it has received.

The part of "my theory", as you call it, (I don't really have a theory), dealing with saltational evolution is quite adequately elucidated and defended by those scientists I've alluded to over and over and over in my posts here.  They make plenty of testable predictions which are subject to empirical research and they don't appeal to supernatural mechanisms.  If you're really interested in pursuing a saltational theory of evolution, you could do well to read their works.  I'm guessing however, that you're not really that interested.  I don't blame you, you've got the theory of evolution which explains everything - why would you pursue anything else?

The part of "my theory" that deals with God is not based on science, does not claim to be scientific (anymore - thanks for that), and though it makes predictions - they are not testable predictions (at least not until the end of history).

So Bill, I'm pretty sure we've covered all this before.  You're wrong about the science of saltational evolutionary theories and right about my theological beliefs.

Did we really need a review?

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

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,18:17   

Born ignorant and losing ground ever since.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,18:46   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 23 2009,20:16)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 23 2009,17:59)
It has not been shown to be false.

Explain to me the exact processes that produced the new complex organization in the Tragopogon species and then you'll show my assertion to be false.

So far, all we've got is allopolyploid speciation.
What genes were expressed/repressed?  What enzymes were involved and how were they created?  How are the biochemical pathways regulated and where did this regulation come from?  Is there really anything new here - or is this what you'll always get when you throw these two genomes together?

There are lots of questions to ask if you care to ask them.

You have, in this very thread, conceded that the novel Tragopogon species meet your original criteria. I won't bother to document your inability to keep the goalposts in place.

The mechanisms have yet to be worked out in the detail that you demand (for others, but not for yourself), but there is no reason (other than your blinders) to assume that natural processes, known to science, can explain it. You do not need to invoke anything special, nor anything supernatural, to get there. Furthermore it matters not a bit if this is what you "always get", or if it happens once and never again. That is another goalpost on the move.

And the only question that needs to be asked are the ones you have avoided all along. What mechanisms would you use to explain these observations, and what is the evidence for your position? You clearly have issues with the way the Soltis team is trying to explain the observations, but you don't have anything positive to add to the discussion at all.

I've explained the mechanisms of creation as well as anyone here has elucidated the mechanisms of evolution.

Life was built by an omniscient being who was able to bring atoms together via an as-yet-unknown method.  He used his vast knowledge of chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, the future and the past to design successful biological systems which would be functional, adaptive, self-maintaining, elegant, efficient and evolvable.  He used the as-yet-unknown method to implement said designs into life.  This method was probably similar to the one we humans use on a macro-scale when we build houses, bridges, cars and the like.  It involves the orderly joining of parts into a whole.

The evidence for omniscience is the fact that all life is mind-bogglingly complex in its organization.  The evidence for a divine plan is the fact that all signs point to an earlier and earlier organizational complexity of life and the fact that there is an increasing reliance by scientists upon reorganizational and combinatorial, rather than mutational, mechanisms to explain such.

It's as good as any of your explanations now.  If you want more detail - I asked you first!

BTW, the novel Tragopogon species does not meet my original criteria - it meets a later challenge.

In order to meet my original criteria, the origin must be fully explained.

The fact that this species has multiple origins and undergoes concerted evolution does not bode well for any of the commonly accepted random evolutionary mechanisms.

I'm glad we're still talking about flowers though!

--------------
"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: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,18:48   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,19:14)
If you're really interested in pursuing a saltational theory of evolution, you could do well to read their works.  

Obsolete and ultimately unsupported scientific hypotheses may be of interest to historians of same, as well as to present day crackpot science denialists, but I haven't the time for that.

I am interested in current living science, not discarded and misappropriated dead ends, however scientific their original motivations.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,18:52   

Quote (Quack @ Feb. 21 2009,00:38)
 
Quote
I've consistently said that we'll never figure out how God did it.  What part of that is hypocritical?


OK, if that's what it is, the case is settled, so why are you still here?

To persuade science that your assumption is the one and only solution?

So therefore we should begin worshiping your God?

It is getting pretty boring, can't you at least let us (or at least me) know what; what exactly are you selling here? That you are not on a buying spree is obvious, but again: What is it that you want to sell to the world, or what is your gift to the world?

If it is just: Science cannot answer, never will - but I, Daniel knows: God did it (but I don't know how, I just know it in my heart because that's the way it's got to be! If it isn't, I have a huge problem!), we already know that. Is that all there is to it?

Be a Christian and offer your other ear, patience is a Christian virtue, isn't it? Walk another mile with me, won't you, like the Lord said you should?

The reason I'm here is twofold:

1.  To put my ideas to the test.  To throw them out there and see if they are successfully shot down or if they stand the test.

2.  To challenge those who think science verifies their lack of belief in God and hopefully convince one or two that it doesn't.

Does that answer your question Quack?

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

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,18:53   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,19:46)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Feb. 23 2009,20:16)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 23 2009,17:59)
It has not been shown to be false.

Explain to me the exact processes that produced the new complex organization in the Tragopogon species and then you'll show my assertion to be false.

So far, all we've got is allopolyploid speciation.
What genes were expressed/repressed?  What enzymes were involved and how were they created?  How are the biochemical pathways regulated and where did this regulation come from?  Is there really anything new here - or is this what you'll always get when you throw these two genomes together?

There are lots of questions to ask if you care to ask them.

You have, in this very thread, conceded that the novel Tragopogon species meet your original criteria. I won't bother to document your inability to keep the goalposts in place.

The mechanisms have yet to be worked out in the detail that you demand (for others, but not for yourself), but there is no reason (other than your blinders) to assume that natural processes, known to science, can explain it. You do not need to invoke anything special, nor anything supernatural, to get there. Furthermore it matters not a bit if this is what you "always get", or if it happens once and never again. That is another goalpost on the move.

And the only question that needs to be asked are the ones you have avoided all along. What mechanisms would you use to explain these observations, and what is the evidence for your position? You clearly have issues with the way the Soltis team is trying to explain the observations, but you don't have anything positive to add to the discussion at all.

I've explained the mechanisms of creation as well as anyone here has elucidated the mechanisms of evolution.

Life was built by an omniscient being who was able to bring atoms together via an as-yet-unknown method.  He used his vast knowledge of chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, the future and the past to design successful biological systems which would be functional, adaptive, self-maintaining, elegant, efficient and evolvable.  He used the as-yet-unknown method to implement said designs into life.  This method was probably similar to the one we humans use on a macro-scale when we build houses, bridges, cars and the like.  It involves the orderly joining of parts into a whole.

The evidence for omniscience is the fact that all life is mind-bogglingly complex in its organization.  The evidence for a divine plan is the fact that all signs point to an earlier and earlier organizational complexity of life and the fact that there is an increasing reliance by scientists upon reorganizational and combinatorial, rather than mutational, mechanisms to explain such.

It's as good as any of your explanations now.  If you want more detail - I asked you first!

BTW, the novel Tragopogon species does not meet my original criteria - it meets a later challenge.

In order to meet my original criteria, the origin must be fully explained.

The fact that this species has multiple origins and undergoes concerted evolution does not bode well for any of the commonly accepted random evolutionary mechanisms.

I'm glad we're still talking about flowers though!

So how big is His penis?

And why did He need such?

Does He need to pee?

Does He have nocturnal emissions?

Does He masturbate?

As I was not created in His image, do I need to listen to His instructions?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,19:00   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 24 2009,04:51)
You have 12 similar species forming in 80 years, not single species formed 12 times.  They may not be reproductively isolated from each other, yet, but as we have shown that is not difficult to achieve by drift or different selection regimes.
...

The species concept used in this paper is fraught with error.  It doesn't allow for evolution, it is a morphological type concept.

I smell defeat.

It ain't pretty when they start turning on their own.

Don't blame me Erasmus - Albatrossity brought those "error filled" papers into the discussion!

(I'm taking it that you don't want to talk about flowers anymore!)

--------------
"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: Feb. 24 2009,19:07   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 24 2009,02:13)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

[snip]

Louis

Congratulations Louis!

You've just joined oldman on my Troll list.

It's quite obvious that you just want to harass me and that no civil or productive discussion can be had with you.

I'll be skipping all your posts too now.

--------------
"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: Feb. 24 2009,19:17   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 24 2009,14:15)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 23 2009,18:40)
I don't agree with Schindewolf on this point, but he is basing his argument on "natural science", while I am basing mine on theology.

The question you are asking is whether the actual evidence supports orthogenesis or not.  As you know, Schindewolf cataloged volumes of evidence which he thought supported such an interpretation.  Others think differently.  I don't know that horse evolution proves or disproves either conclusion.  Gould seemed much more concerned with all the branches on the evolutionary tree while Schindewolf seemed intent on the specific lineage that led to the North American Horse.

Orthogenesis is not the main issue for me - although I'm inclined to believe it is a real phenomenon.  Schindewolf, as you know, felt that evolution could be divided into three phases.  He did not believe the first phase - the saltational typogenesis - to be constrained by orthogenetic forces.  That is the phase of evolution I am most concerned about - the saltational, creative phase.

Well that's just dandy.

So, what exactly are we all supposed to learn from reading Schindewolf, Berg, Goldschmidt, Davison, etc.?

That current evolutionary science is bunk?*

Please either state your thesis or desist from claiming that we are missing something significant by not having read the works of these authors.

*Why do I think that's the point?

Because it's not a big issue to me, it's not worth reading?

Wow, I didn't know I wielded so much power!

The plain fact is that evolution involves way more than the neat little mutationally driven engine we've all heard so much about.  I'm not talking about drift either.  All those things happen, but - when it comes to explaining origins - nobody is appealing to either of those mechanisms anymore.

Haven't you noticed that?

These authors I point to - and which science discarded - were talking about genome reorganizations and system-wide mutations way before such was popular.  

Their science is being vindicated now while Darwin and the other gradualists are falling to the wayside.

Haven't you noticed that?

--------------
"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: Feb. 24 2009,19:22   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 24 2009,16:48)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,19:14)
If you're really interested in pursuing a saltational theory of evolution, you could do well to read their works.  

Obsolete and ultimately unsupported scientific hypotheses may be of interest to historians of same, as well as to present day crackpot science denialists, but I haven't the time for that.

I am interested in current living science, not discarded and misappropriated dead ends, however scientific their original motivations.

How would you know any of that without reading these scientists' works for yourself Bill?

Don't pre-judge what you know nothing about.  It might make points here, but overall it makes you a smaller person.

You admire Gould for his open-mindedness, yet act the opposite.  Sad.

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

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,19:42   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,20:00)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 24 2009,04:51)
You have 12 similar species forming in 80 years, not single species formed 12 times.  They may not be reproductively isolated from each other, yet, but as we have shown that is not difficult to achieve by drift or different selection regimes.
...

The species concept used in this paper is fraught with error.  It doesn't allow for evolution, it is a morphological type concept.

I smell defeat.

It ain't pretty when they start turning on their own.

Don't blame me Erasmus - Albatrossity brought those "error filled" papers into the discussion!

(I'm taking it that you don't want to talk about flowers anymore!)




--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,19:56   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,19:52)
The reason I'm here is twofold:

1.  To put my ideas to the test.  To throw them out there and see if they are successfully shot down or if they stand the test.


Well, that didn't go so well for them by any objective measure. "Down in flames" is an expression that comes to mind.







   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,19:52)
2.  To challenge those who think science verifies their lack of belief in God and hopefully convince one or two that it doesn't.


Still waiting for you to pose any sort of challenge at all. Wake us up when you get around to that part.

Edited by Lou FCD on Feb. 24 2009,20:59

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,19:58   

you poor dumb bastard, there is no 'their own'.  wrong is fucking wrong.  and you are wrong, inasmuch as you say anything of substance.

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

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

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,20:00   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,18:52)
Quote (Quack @ Feb. 21 2009,00:38)
   
Quote
I've consistently said that we'll never figure out how God did it.  What part of that is hypocritical?


OK, if that's what it is, the case is settled, so why are you still here?

To persuade science that your assumption is the one and only solution?

So therefore we should begin worshiping your God?

It is getting pretty boring, can't you at least let us (or at least me) know what; what exactly are you selling here? That you are not on a buying spree is obvious, but again: What is it that you want to sell to the world, or what is your gift to the world?

If it is just: Science cannot answer, never will - but I, Daniel knows: God did it (but I don't know how, I just know it in my heart because that's the way it's got to be! If it isn't, I have a huge problem!), we already know that. Is that all there is to it?

Be a Christian and offer your other ear, patience is a Christian virtue, isn't it? Walk another mile with me, won't you, like the Lord said you should?

The reason I'm here is twofold:

1.  To put my ideas to the test.  To throw them out there and see if they are successfully shot down or if they stand the test.

2.  To challenge those who think science verifies their lack of belief in God and hopefully convince one or two that it doesn't.

Does that answer your question Quack?

what ideas?  all you have said is "God Dunned It and Youns Don't Know Shit".  

Quote
In order to meet my original criteria, the origin must be fully explained.


What is the p value for that?  

When you have been given the evidence you request you have moved the goalposts.  They now stand at "Get Your Own Dirt".  

Fuck off, troll.

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

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

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

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,20:09   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,19:52)
2.  To challenge those who think science verifies their lack of belief in God and hopefully convince one or two that it doesn't.



--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,20:11   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,20:22)
How would you know any of that without reading these scientists' works for yourself Bill?

Don't pre-judge what you know nothing about.  It might make points here, but overall it makes you a smaller person.

You admire Gould for his open-mindedness, yet act the opposite.  Sad.

Don't be sad. Whatever my size, I rely upon serious scholars of biological science - e.g. Ernst Mayr in the his 1982 masterwork The Growth of Biological Thought and Stephen Jay Gould in his The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, among others - for guidance regarding where to put my limited time and energy, not obtuse science deniers with zero credibility (you). Mayr, for example, summarized several facts of evolution, then stated:

"These findings completely refuted the antiselectionist, saltational evolutionary theories of de Vries and Bateson. Curiously, this by no means spelled the end of saltationism, which continued for several decades to have substantial support, as for instance by the geneticist Goldschmidt, the paleontologist Schindewolf...the botanist Willis, and some of the philosophers. Eventually it was universally accepted that an origin of species and higher taxa through individuals does not occur, except in the form of polyploidy (principally in plants). The phenomenon which the adherents of macrogenesis had used as support could now be readily explained in terms of gradual evolution. Particularly important...was the recognition of the importance of two previously neglected evolutionary processes: drastically different rates of evolution in different organisms and populations, and evolutionary changes in small, isolated populations. It was not until the 1940s and 50s that well-argued defenses of macrogenesis disappeared from the evolutionary literature in the wake of the evolutionary synthesis." (p. 551)

"The new understanding of the nature of populations and of species enabled the naturalists to solve the age-old problem of speciation - a problem that had been insoluble for those who looked for the solution at the level of genes or genotypes. At that level the only solution is instantaneous speciation by a drastic mutation or other unknown processes. As de Vries had stated, "the theory of mutation assumes that new species and varieties are produced from existing forms by certain leaps." Or as Goldschmidt had stated, "The decisive leap in evolution, the first step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method [that is, the origin of hopeful monsters] than that of sheer accumulation of micro mutations." The naturalists realized that the essential element of the speciation process is not the physiological mechanism involved (genes or chromosomes) but the incipient species, that is, a population. Geographic speciation, consequently, was defined by Mayr in terms of populations: "A new species develops if a population which has become geographically isolated from its parental species acquires during this period of isolation characters which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation when the external barriers break down.'" (p. 562)

In short, Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, Bateson and other saltationists are part of scientific history, obsolete for a half-century and longer, and no longer relevant to current thinking. I don't have time for that.

[edit to replace mistaken "not" with "now."]

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,21:02   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,18:52)
The reason I'm here is twofold:

1.  To put my ideas to the test.  To throw them out there and see if they are successfully shot down or if they stand the test.

2.  To challenge those who think science verifies their lack of belief in God and hopefully convince one or two that it doesn't.

Daniel, this will be my last reply to you, since it is clear that you have no interest in honest discussion. You cannot face the fact that you might be wrong, that your preconceived and precious worldview might have to be discarded. That's the big difference between you and any scientist here. We're wrong on a regular basis. Our preconceived notions give up the ghost quite regularly. That's because we look at the evidence to see what it is telling us, rather than tell the evidence what we want it to say.

I'd be thrilled if you had real evidence that evolutionary theory was incapable of explaining the observations of the world around us. It would be an exciting development in the history of science, and I'd love to be alive during such a time. But you have no evidence, just your presuppositions about the evidence. You are incapable of changing your mind or testing your ideas; that is a laughable statement for someone like you to make.

Good luck propping up your faith with science. I hope it works out, and that you never have to face the facts that your presuppositions have blinded you to a beautiful reality.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,21:52   

Quote
while Darwin and the other gradualists are falling to the wayside.

A minor point, but Darwin wasn't a gradualist. He expected that most (or at least a lot of) evolution might be in bursts, and in small subsets of populations.

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,21:54   

When multiple polyploidy events occur from the same parent species, how often can those offspring interbreed with each other?

Henry

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,22:14   

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 24 2009,21:54)
When multiple polyploidy events occur from the same parent species, how often can those offspring interbreed with each other?

Henry

or perhaps more importantly, is there even gene flow between those populations.  

galax is a good example of a plant with many geographic races with different ploidys.  and ecotypes.  and various reproductive incompatibilities.  and phenologies.  a wonderful mosaic of evolutionary and ecological processes occurring over the entire mountains of the eastern united states.  

and some then dipshit runs up and says "whut thems all the same kind anyhow you still ain't explaint how them things know to turn sunlight into sugar and then why do they smell like a damn wet bear and tell me why they are green".

--------------
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: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,22:38   

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 24 2009,21:52)
Quote
while Darwin and the other gradualists are falling to the wayside.

A minor point, but Darwin wasn't a gradualist. He expected that most (or at least a lot of) evolution might be in bursts, and in small subsets of populations.

Henry

What Darwin wasn't would be a phyletic gradualist, the category Gould invented for Darwin that included constant rates of change of entire populations over their full geographic extent, resulting in anagenetic speciation and not cladogenesis.

Darwin was a gradualist, someone who appreciates that the preponderance of evolutionary change occurs via populational processes and not saltational changes in one or a few individuals out of a population. Being a gradualist is something pretty much all of the modern biological community does, too.

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

    
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,23:13   

Oh. I guess the term "gradualist" can be ambiguous when not  in a context that qualifies it. I tend to think of the term as meaning a slow rate of change over a large part of the species existence, but I gather it can mean simply not saltational.

Henry

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 24 2009,23:41   

i have it good authority that CD also invented time travel and grand theft auto 4.

wes do you believe darwin sowed the seeds of the notion that phenotypical changes were most labile during speciation?  or is gould looking backwards through those rose colored glasses?  i've always thought that a stretch

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

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2009,00:54   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,19:07)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 24 2009,02:13)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

[snip]

Louis

Congratulations Louis!

You've just joined oldman on my Troll list.

It's quite obvious that you just want to harass me and that no civil or productive discussion can be had with you.

I'll be skipping all your posts too now.

Cool!  This reminds me of a guy on another board, who kept threatening with putting people on his ignore list.  He even added the names of those he ignored to his sigline.  Pretty funny.  We all tried to get on his ignore list.  Can't recall if he ever did get to me, now that I think of it.  Damn.  Always the bridesmaid never the bride...

(Of course, I rarely blush, so maybe that is part of the reason.  Can't get that sexual-pink coloration that stimulates the sex drive, if you go for that hypothesis)

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2009,01:00   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 24 2009,23:41)
i have it good authority that CD also invented time travel and grand theft auto 4.

Ahh - I knew there was a reason I liked that game.  

Wait - was Darwin the guy with the telephone booth who picked up "so-crates"?  I get confused with all that time travel paradox stuff.  Although, if Fry can be his own grandfather, does that prove evolution false?

:p

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
snorkild



Posts: 32
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2009,02:40   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 23 2009,17:59)
I've explained the mechanisms of creation as well as anyone here has elucidated the mechanisms of evolution.

LOL sure!

 
Quote
Life was built by an omniscient being who was able to bring atoms together via an as-yet-unknown method.  He used his vast knowledge of chemistry, physics, engineering, mathematics, the future and the past to design successful biological systems which would be functional, adaptive, self-maintaining, elegant, efficient and evolvable.  He used the as-yet-unknown method to implement said designs into life.  This method was probably similar to the one we humans use on a macro-scale when we build houses, bridges, cars and the like.  It involves the orderly joining of parts into a whole.

That's a lot of unknowns in critical places.

Tell me: Did God insert the defect vitamin C gene into every Old World Monkey species, or did he create the broken gene only once, and then left evolution to do the rest?

--------------
wimp

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2009,03:00   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,19:07)
Congratulations Louis!

You've just joined oldman on my Troll list.

It's quite obvious that you just want to harass me and that no civil or productive discussion can be had with you.

I'll be skipping all your posts too now.

Seems to me that very shortly the only people talking to you will be the people telling you to fuck off.

Enjoy!

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2009,03:07   

Is Denial really Thomas Cudworth?
Quote
I don’t want to hear, for the umpteenth time, how a light-sensistive spot might have retreated into a depression, and then could have been accidentally covered over by some semi-transparent skin which later could have become a lens, etc. I want to see specific mechanisms for all of these changes in terms of particular point mutations along the genome, and related developmental changes. I want to see checkable numbers given for mutation rates, I want full lists of ecological competitors inhabiting the Ordovician ocean, I want accurate CO2 and ultra-violet levels and other relevant environmental data over the period of time in question, etc. Most such details are lacking in Darwinian accounts. We can’t test the efficacy of RM + NS if we don’t have precise information regarding both the mutation side and the selection side.

an-open-challenge-to-neo-darwinists-what-would-it-take-to-falsify-your-theory/
If not, they are brothers in tard.

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

  
Rrr



Posts: 146
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2009,03:14   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 25 2009,03:07)
Is Denial really Thomas Cudworth?
 
Quote
I don’t want to hear, for the umpteenth time, how a light-sensistive spot might have retreated into a depression, and then could have been accidentally covered over by some semi-transparent skin which later could have become a lens, etc. I want to see specific mechanisms for all of these changes in terms of particular point mutations along the genome, and related developmental changes. I want to see checkable numbers given for mutation rates, I want full lists of ecological competitors inhabiting the Ordovician ocean, I want accurate CO2 and ultra-violet levels and other relevant environmental data over the period of time in question, etc. Most such details are lacking in Darwinian accounts. We can’t test the efficacy of RM + NS if we don’t have precise information regarding both the mutation side and the selection side.

an-open-challenge-to-neo-darwinists-what-would-it-take-to-falsify-your-theory/
If not, they are brothers in tard.

I doubt that.  ;) Denial is hardly worth cud. ;)

Brothers? Well, the same kind, it certainly seems.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2009,03:25   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 25 2009,01:07)
Quote (Louis @ Feb. 24 2009,02:13)
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
The mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush,
So early in the morning.

[snip]

Louis

Congratulations Louis!

You've just joined oldman on my Troll list.

It's quite obvious that you just want to harass me and that no civil or productive discussion can be had with you.

I'll be skipping all your posts too now.

All very nice, but you need to prove you are not a child molester. I claim that it is impossible for you to prove you are not a child molester, it's up to you to prove that wrong, like you I don't need to provide details.

BTW your whining doesn't constitute some species of moral high ground. It's abundantly obvious what you are and I am happy tp point it out.

Louis

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

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2009,06:38   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 24 2009,20:11)
Don't be sad. Whatever my size, I rely upon serious scholars of biological science - e.g. Ernst Mayr in the his 1982 masterwork The Growth of Biological Thought and Stephen Jay Gould in his The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, among others - for guidance regarding where to put my limited time and energy, not obtuse science deniers with zero credibility (you). Mayr, for example, summarized several facts of evolution...
....

In short, Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, Bateson and other saltationists are part of scientific history, obsolete for a half-century and longer, and no longer relevant to current thinking. I don't have time for that.

Well said and quoted, Bill.  Here's more from Mayr on pages 530-531 that bears on your points:
     
Quote
In due time all theories defending orthogenesis were refuted, but this does not justify ignoring this literature. The major representatives of orthogenesis, whether paleontologists or other kinds of naturalists, were keen observers and brought together fascinating evidence for evolutionary trends and for genetic constraints during evolution. They were right in insisting that much of evolution is, at least superficially, "rectilinear.” In horses, the reduction of the toe bones and the changes in the teeth are well-known examples. In fact, the study of almost any extended fossil series reveals instances of evolutionary trends. Such trends are of importance to the evolutionist because they reveal the existence of continuities that are worth exploring, and have therefore been given much attention in the current evolutionary literature.

Trends may have a dual causation. On the one hand they may be caused by consistent changes of the environment, such as the increasing aridity of the subtropical and temperate zone climate during the Tertiary. This set up a continuing selection pressure which resulted in the toe and tooth evolution of the horses. A response to such a continuing selection pressure is what Plate had in mind when he introduced the term “orthoselection” (1903). On the other hand, trends may be necessitated by the internal cohesion of the genotype which places severe constraints on the morphological changes that are possible.  Hence, evolutionary trends are readily explained within the explanatory framework of the Darwinian theory and do not require any separate “laws” or principles.


--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2009,12:28   

Here's a question and a real challenge for Daniel.

Suppose that "Evolution", as per your strawman of it, is 100% wrong.  Why is yours correct?

There are other creation stories, myths, etc, that are out there.  What evidence do you have that shows ID to be valid?  In other words, instead of demanding fossil evidence of chemical pathways, show us the evidence that you have that supports ID.

See for ID to be valid, it must stand on its own, not on the perceived faults of Evolution.  A real theory shows how it explains what is already seen and makes predictions on what we should find.

I think I asked you this before, so if I did forgive me but I didn't see your response, what are the scientific, not colloquial, definitions of:

1:  Postulate

2:  Hypothesis

3:  Theory

4:  Proof


Thanks

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2009,12:30   

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:28)
Here's a question and a real challenge for Daniel.

Suppose that "Evolution", as per your strawman of it, is 100% wrong.  Why is yours correct?

There are other creation stories, myths, etc, that are out there.  What evidence do you have that shows ID to be valid?  In other words, instead of demanding fossil evidence of chemical pathways, show us the evidence that you have that supports ID.

See for ID to be valid, it must stand on its own, not on the perceived faults of Evolution.  A real theory shows how it explains what is already seen and makes predictions on what we should find.

I think I asked you this before, so if I did forgive me but I didn't see your response, what are the scientific, not colloquial, definitions of:

1:  Postulate

2:  Hypothesis

3:  Theory

4:  Proof


Thanks

Oh, that one's too easy!!!!



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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2009,13:01   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Feb. 25 2009,12:30)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:28)
Here's a question and a real challenge for Daniel.

Suppose that "Evolution", as per your strawman of it, is 100% wrong.  Why is yours correct?

(snip)

Oh, that one's too easy!!!!


We know where he gets it but why is his right and all the other faiths' versions wrong?

He needs to provide evidence for his version.  Circular logic will not cut it.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2009,13:27   

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,19:01)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 25 2009,12:30)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:28)
Here's a question and a real challenge for Daniel.

Suppose that "Evolution", as per your strawman of it, is 100% wrong.  Why is yours correct?

(snip)

Oh, that one's too easy!!!!


We know where he gets it but why is his right and all the other faiths' versions wrong?

He needs to provide evidence for his version.  Circular logic will not cut it.

He absolutely will not do this. He knows he cannot. Hence flannelling about and cognitive dissonance and appeals to prejudice.

He cannot do it, just like he cannot prove he is not a child molester.*

Louis

*There is method to the odious and offensive frivolity of this specific analogy. Use Denial's own mode of argumentation and maybe he'll understand why it don't work none! It sometimes works....

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2009,14:10   

Quote (Louis @ Feb. 25 2009,13:27)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,19:01)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 25 2009,12:30)
 
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:28)
Here's a question and a real challenge for Daniel.

Suppose that "Evolution", as per your strawman of it, is 100% wrong.  Why is yours correct?

(snip)
Oh, that one's too easy!!!!
We know where he gets it but why is his right and all the other faiths' versions wrong?

He needs to provide evidence for his version.  Circular logic will not cut it.
He absolutely will not do this. He knows he cannot. Hence flannelling about and cognitive dissonance and appeals to prejudice.

He cannot do it, just like he cannot prove he is not a child molester.*

Louis

*There is method to the odious and offensive frivolity of this specific analogy. Use Denial's own mode of argumentation and maybe he'll understand why it don't work none! It sometimes works....

That is his choice.

If he wants to "teach the controversy", it's time for him to put up what he believes to be the case.  What he should describe is what his version has or does with respect to:

1:  Evidence

2:  Predictions

3:  Repeatability

4:  Falsification

Those all, and if you know more Louis let's have them, need to be shown by Daniel if he wants anyone to take him seriously.

Right now Daniel, here's a hint.  All you have is a postulate.  You believe that life came about in some certain manner.  That's it.  Can you take it higher?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,14:00   

Hello again there Daniel,


Just letting you know I will not forget about you.  Are you still at Telic Thoughts?  Should I ask these there?


Thanks again,


Frank

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,18:15   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 24 2009,18:11)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 24 2009,20:22)
How would you know any of that without reading these scientists' works for yourself Bill?

Don't pre-judge what you know nothing about.  It might make points here, but overall it makes you a smaller person.

You admire Gould for his open-mindedness, yet act the opposite.  Sad.

Don't be sad. Whatever my size, I rely upon serious scholars of biological science - e.g. Ernst Mayr in the his 1982 masterwork The Growth of Biological Thought and Stephen Jay Gould in his The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, among others - for guidance regarding where to put my limited time and energy, not obtuse science deniers with zero credibility (you). Mayr, for example, summarized several facts of evolution, then stated:

"These findings completely refuted the antiselectionist, saltational evolutionary theories of de Vries and Bateson. Curiously, this by no means spelled the end of saltationism, which continued for several decades to have substantial support, as for instance by the geneticist Goldschmidt, the paleontologist Schindewolf...the botanist Willis, and some of the philosophers. Eventually it was universally accepted that an origin of species and higher taxa through individuals does not occur, except in the form of polyploidy (principally in plants). The phenomenon which the adherents of macrogenesis had used as support could now be readily explained in terms of gradual evolution. Particularly important...was the recognition of the importance of two previously neglected evolutionary processes: drastically different rates of evolution in different organisms and populations, and evolutionary changes in small, isolated populations. It was not until the 1940s and 50s that well-argued defenses of macrogenesis disappeared from the evolutionary literature in the wake of the evolutionary synthesis." (p. 551)

"The new understanding of the nature of populations and of species enabled the naturalists to solve the age-old problem of speciation - a problem that had been insoluble for those who looked for the solution at the level of genes or genotypes. At that level the only solution is instantaneous speciation by a drastic mutation or other unknown processes. As de Vries had stated, "the theory of mutation assumes that new species and varieties are produced from existing forms by certain leaps." Or as Goldschmidt had stated, "The decisive leap in evolution, the first step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method [that is, the origin of hopeful monsters] than that of sheer accumulation of micro mutations." The naturalists realized that the essential element of the speciation process is not the physiological mechanism involved (genes or chromosomes) but the incipient species, that is, a population. Geographic speciation, consequently, was defined by Mayr in terms of populations: "A new species develops if a population which has become geographically isolated from its parental species acquires during this period of isolation characters which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation when the external barriers break down.'" (p. 562)

In short, Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, Bateson and other saltationists are part of scientific history, obsolete for a half-century and longer, and no longer relevant to current thinking. I don't have time for that.

[edit to replace mistaken "not" with "now."]

I don't think you realize how outdated the idea of speciation via the "sheer accumulation of micro mutations" is.

Maybe you should try to find a recent paper that postulates that mechanism for the origin of any novel system.

You won't find many papers anymore that don't appeal to gene duplications, whole genome duplications, horizontal gene transfer, genetic reshuffling and the like, as opposed to an accumulation of micro mutations.

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

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,18:28   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,19:24)
This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think?

It seems very messy to me, but then I do biology for a living. Since you think it's so neat and tidy, why don't you become a biologist and show us how neat and tidy it is?
Quote
A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.

It doesn't just fall into place. It evolves.
Quote
So, do you think evolution normally works this way?

No, you nincompoop. The norm is that it doesn't work this way, and you don't see the failures because they are selected against.

This is a fundamental concept that you fail to grasp.
Quote
It sure seems a lot more like the "unfolding of pre-existing rudiments" than "selection acting on random variation" - wouldn't you say?

Nope. I wouldn't say that the selection is acting on "random variation," as the variation is only random wrt fitness. Why do you keep using that tired old straw man?

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,18:34   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 24 2009,17:58)
you poor dumb bastard, there is no 'their own'.  wrong is fucking wrong.  and you are wrong, inasmuch as you say anything of substance.

You're right Erasmus - someone is wrong here.

You claim that the paper Albatrossity recommended, and I later cited, was full of errors in regard to its classification of the Tragopogon mirus and T. miscellus species.

So whom am I to believe: Ales Kovarik and R. Matyasek of the Institute of Biophysics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Kralovopolska; J. C. Pires of the Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison; A. R. Leitch and K. Y. Lim of the School of Biological Sciences, Queen Mary, University of London; A. Sherwood of the School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman; J. Rocca and P. Soltis of the Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville; and D. Soltis of the Department of Botany, University of Florida, Gainesville;

OR...

Erasmus, FCD - foul-mouthed, anonymous internet poster?

That's a tuffy!!  But I think I'll side with those who actually sign and stand behind their work.

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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,18:40   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 26 2009,18:34)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 24 2009,17:58)
you poor dumb bastard, there is no 'their own'.  wrong is fucking wrong.  and you are wrong, inasmuch as you say anything of substance.

You're right Erasmus - someone is wrong here.

You claim that the paper Albatrossity recommended, and I later cited, was full of errors in regard to its classification of the Tragopogon mirus and T. miscellus species.

So whom am I to believe: Ales Kovarik and R. Matyasek of the Institute of Biophysics, Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic, Kralovopolska; J. C. Pires of the Department of Agronomy, University of Wisconsin, Madison; A. R. Leitch and K. Y. Lim of the School of Biological Sciences, Queen Mary, University of London; A. Sherwood of the School of Biological Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman; J. Rocca and P. Soltis of the Florida Museum of Natural History, University of Florida, Gainesville; and D. Soltis of the Department of Botany, University of Florida, Gainesville;

OR...

Erasmus, FCD - foul-mouthed, anonymous internet poster?

That's a tuffy!!  But I think I'll side with those who actually sign and stand behind their work.

That sound you just heard is the sound of all irony meters stopping instantaneously and every molecule in them exploding at the speed of light.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,18:46   

Quote (mitschlag @ Feb. 25 2009,04:38)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 24 2009,20:11)
Don't be sad. Whatever my size, I rely upon serious scholars of biological science - e.g. Ernst Mayr in the his 1982 masterwork The Growth of Biological Thought and Stephen Jay Gould in his The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, among others - for guidance regarding where to put my limited time and energy, not obtuse science deniers with zero credibility (you). Mayr, for example, summarized several facts of evolution...
....

In short, Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, Bateson and other saltationists are part of scientific history, obsolete for a half-century and longer, and no longer relevant to current thinking. I don't have time for that.

Well said and quoted, Bill.  Here's more from Mayr on pages 530-531 that bears on your points:
       
Quote
In due time all theories defending orthogenesis were refuted, but this does not justify ignoring this literature. The major representatives of orthogenesis, whether paleontologists or other kinds of naturalists, were keen observers and brought together fascinating evidence for evolutionary trends and for genetic constraints during evolution. They were right in insisting that much of evolution is, at least superficially, "rectilinear.” In horses, the reduction of the toe bones and the changes in the teeth are well-known examples. In fact, the study of almost any extended fossil series reveals instances of evolutionary trends. Such trends are of importance to the evolutionist because they reveal the existence of continuities that are worth exploring, and have therefore been given much attention in the current evolutionary literature.

Trends may have a dual causation. On the one hand they may be caused by consistent changes of the environment, such as the increasing aridity of the subtropical and temperate zone climate during the Tertiary. This set up a continuing selection pressure which resulted in the toe and tooth evolution of the horses. A response to such a continuing selection pressure is what Plate had in mind when he introduced the term “orthoselection” (1903). On the other hand, trends may be necessitated by the internal cohesion of the genotype which places severe constraints on the morphological changes that are possible.  Hence, evolutionary trends are readily explained within the explanatory framework of the Darwinian theory and do not require any separate “laws” or principles.

This book was published in 1982.  How well does recent evidence fit?  It seems to me that there is mounting evidence against the "explanatory framework of the Darwinian theory".

I've already predicted several times that - as evidence mounts - gradualistic mechanisms will fall by the wayside.

We'll see...

--------------
"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: Feb. 26 2009,18:54   

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:10)

That is his choice.

If he wants to "teach the controversy", it's time for him to put up what he believes to be the case.  What he should describe is what his version has or does with respect to:

1:  Evidence

2:  Predictions

3:  Repeatability

4:  Falsification

Those all, and if you know more Louis let's have them, need to be shown by Daniel if he wants anyone to take him seriously.

Right now Daniel, here's a hint.  All you have is a postulate.  You believe that life came about in some certain manner.  That's it.  Can you take it higher?

I'm guessing you've not read most of what I've posted since coming here in September of 2007 - since you seem to be trying to lump me into some generic "ID" category.

I'm not claiming my views are "science" for starters.  They're just my views - based on theology, personal experience, science, bias, etc.

I'm not advocating "teaching the controversy" nor am I attempting to hide my Christianity in a scientific theory.

I'm just here to discuss my thoughts.

--------------
"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: Feb. 26 2009,18:59   

Quote (JAM @ Feb. 26 2009,16:28)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 14 2009,19:24)
This is all pretty neat and tidy - don't you think?

It seems very messy to me, but then I do biology for a living. Since you think it's so neat and tidy, why don't you become a biologist and show us how neat and tidy it is?
   
Quote
A new morphological feature with all of its many complex biochemical processes just falling into place.

It doesn't just fall into place. It evolves.
   
Quote
So, do you think evolution normally works this way?

No, you nincompoop. The norm is that it doesn't work this way, and you don't see the failures because they are selected against.

This is a fundamental concept that you fail to grasp.
   
Quote
It sure seems a lot more like the "unfolding of pre-existing rudiments" than "selection acting on random variation" - wouldn't you say?

Nope. I wouldn't say that the selection is acting on "random variation," as the variation is only random wrt fitness. Why do you keep using that tired old straw man?

Do you even know what I was referring to in those quotes JAM?

Why did you snip out all the relevant context?

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

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,19:02   

Back to the original point...
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:31)
 
Quote (JAM @ Jan. 26 2009,13:45)
(feel free to move this to the Bathroom Wall, but I hope it's specific enough to stand alone)

On his blog, Daniel Smith offered a tasty slice of arrogance.

I'd like to go through it point by point, to show that what Dan is doing is (quite dishonestly) presenting his assumptions as facts. His bar is so high because it is supported with lies.

However, his assumptions are testable predictions of a scientific "Hypothesis of Impossibility."

So, will Dan test his inadvertent hypotheses or simply assert that he is right? Or will he simply assert that we are bad?

Passing by his initial red herrings for the hypotheses, here goes...
       
Quote
In E. coli, (one of the simplest unicellular lifeforms on the planet), the amino acids aspartic acid, asparagine, lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine are synthesized from the compound oxaloacetate via a series of biochemical steps - each of which requires its own unique enzyme, (remember?).

No, Dan, I don't remember that.

The reality here is that your hypothesis simply predicts that each biochemical step REQUIRES its own UNIQUE enzyme.

Is this prediction empirically true? Please define "requires" and "unique" before responding, and when you respond, man up and cite DATA. No passing the buck with quotes.

I got my information from my Biochemistry textbook JAM.

I don't believe you, Dan.
Quote
It states in the text that each step in this biochemical pathway is catalyzed by its own unique enzyme.

What it states is irrelevant. What matters is that you have a prediction here, and we should find out whether it is consistent with the data.

I realize that you want to pass the buck, but that's just more evidence of your fundamental dishonesty in these matters.

So, I'll ask again. Is each step in the biochemical pathway catalyzed by its own unique enzyme? What exactly do you mean by "unique" in this context anyway? Doesn't your implicit hypothesis clearly predict that the enzymes will not be related to each other?

Quote
I used the term "requires" because the present system requires those enzymes to work.


But if your goal is to assert that the present system could not have evolved from a past system that didn't require these allegedly unique enzymes, your point is moot.

Quote
If you're going to quibble about minutia, forget it.  You know what I mean, you're just being petty.

I'm not being petty at all. Your hypothesis predicts that there will be unique enzymes. Is that true? It's really important if you give a damn.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,19:55   

Thomas Cudworth (ignorant troll)

Were we to turn to any literature (something you are manifestly ignorant of) we can find all sorts of examples of shiteous species concepts leading to all sorts of deductive errors.  i love that game.  you picks a model, you takes what you gets.  

unfortunately, playing that game with you would be much like playing chess with a tapeworm.  or beating off with PVC cement.  you offer nothing but a target for abuse.  but i like kicking the shit out of tards.  don't confuse being roundly abused with being wrong.  you aren't even wrong, you say nothing.

By the way, Cuntsworth, you forgot, in your appeal to authority, that your species concept comes from genesis.  give a shout out to moses, you dishonest cunt.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,20:13   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 26 2009,19:46)
This book was published in 1982.  How well does recent evidence fit?  It seems to me that there is mounting evidence against the "explanatory framework of the Darwinian theory".

I've already predicted several times that - as evidence mounts - gradualistic mechanisms will fall by the wayside.

We'll see...

Heh.

Half your argument is based on personal experiences and theological longings - good luck with that - and half on obsolete science and idiosyncratic seemings.

I think we should wrap this up.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,21:05   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 26 2009,20:13)
Heh.

Half your argument is based on personal experiences and theological longings - good luck with that - and half on obsolete science and idiosyncratic seemings.

I think we should wrap this up.

I don't think we have enough wrapping paper to disguise the stink of this dead fish. Paley himself probably smells better than this.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,21:06   

piss on it then

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 26 2009,21:45   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 27 2009,02:54)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:10)

That is his choice.

If he wants to "teach the controversy", it's time for him to put up what he believes to be the case.  What he should describe is what his version has or does with respect to:

1:  Evidence

2:  Predictions

3:  Repeatability

4:  Falsification

Those all, and if you know more Louis let's have them, need to be shown by Daniel if he wants anyone to take him seriously.

Right now Daniel, here's a hint.  All you have is a postulate.  You believe that life came about in some certain manner.  That's it.  Can you take it higher?

I'm guessing you've not read most of what I've posted since coming here in September of 2007 - since you seem to be trying to lump me into some generic "ID" category.

I'm not claiming my views are "science" for starters.  They're just my views - based on theology, personal experience, science, bias, etc.

I'm not advocating "teaching the controversy" nor am I attempting to hide my Christianity in a scientific theory.

I'm just here to discuss my thoughts.


PREACHN' DOG DID IT AND EVOLUTION THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION DIDN'T ....IN OTHER WORDS


CASE CLOSED


NEXT


--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,08:30   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 26 2009,18:54)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:10)

That is his choice.

If he wants to "teach the controversy", it's time for him to put up what he believes to be the case.  What he should describe is what his version has or does with respect to:

1:  Evidence

2:  Predictions

3:  Repeatability

4:  Falsification

Those all, and if you know more Louis let's have them, need to be shown by Daniel if he wants anyone to take him seriously.

Right now Daniel, here's a hint.  All you have is a postulate.  You believe that life came about in some certain manner.  That's it.  Can you take it higher?

I'm guessing you've not read most of what I've posted since coming here in September of 2007 - since you seem to be trying to lump me into some generic "ID" category.

I'm not claiming my views are "science" for starters.  They're just my views - based on theology, personal experience, science, bias, etc.

I'm not advocating "teaching the controversy" nor am I attempting to hide my Christianity in a scientific theory.

I'm just here to discuss my thoughts.

I have read your stuff and quite frankly I don't see any theory.  I see wishful thinking, tautological arguments and "I believe it to be" but no theories.

As for "lumping ID into a generic theory", aren't you even more a abuser of "lumping things together"?  In creation circles, cosmology, stellar evolution, galactic evolution, planetary formation, abioginesis and evolution are all the same thing.  You do know that they are different, right?

Even "evolution" has different components.

Now as you are saying that your views are not scientific but your views, that honest of you.  Tell me then, why is your views and perception of how the world works any better than a devout Hindu and how his gods made it all?

Discussing ones thoughts is a noble pursuit.  What is even more noble is learning from sources you don't agree and giving them a truly unbiased hearing even if it goes against one's personal dogma.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,18:48   

Quote (JAM @ Feb. 26 2009,17:02)
Back to the original point...
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:31)
     
Quote (JAM @ Jan. 26 2009,13:45)
(feel free to move this to the Bathroom Wall, but I hope it's specific enough to stand alone)

On his blog, Daniel Smith offered a tasty slice of arrogance.

I'd like to go through it point by point, to show that what Dan is doing is (quite dishonestly) presenting his assumptions as facts. His bar is so high because it is supported with lies.

However, his assumptions are testable predictions of a scientific "Hypothesis of Impossibility."

So, will Dan test his inadvertent hypotheses or simply assert that he is right? Or will he simply assert that we are bad?

Passing by his initial red herrings for the hypotheses, here goes...
           
Quote
In E. coli, (one of the simplest unicellular lifeforms on the planet), the amino acids aspartic acid, asparagine, lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine are synthesized from the compound oxaloacetate via a series of biochemical steps - each of which requires its own unique enzyme, (remember?).

No, Dan, I don't remember that.

The reality here is that your hypothesis simply predicts that each biochemical step REQUIRES its own UNIQUE enzyme.

Is this prediction empirically true? Please define "requires" and "unique" before responding, and when you respond, man up and cite DATA. No passing the buck with quotes.

I got my information from my Biochemistry textbook JAM.

I don't believe you, Dan.
   
Quote
It states in the text that each step in this biochemical pathway is catalyzed by its own unique enzyme.

What it states is irrelevant. What matters is that you have a prediction here, and we should find out whether it is consistent with the data.

I realize that you want to pass the buck, but that's just more evidence of your fundamental dishonesty in these matters.

So, I'll ask again. Is each step in the biochemical pathway catalyzed by its own unique enzyme? What exactly do you mean by "unique" in this context anyway? Doesn't your implicit hypothesis clearly predict that the enzymes will not be related to each other?

   
Quote
I used the term "requires" because the present system requires those enzymes to work.


But if your goal is to assert that the present system could not have evolved from a past system that didn't require these allegedly unique enzymes, your point is moot.

   
Quote
If you're going to quibble about minutia, forget it.  You know what I mean, you're just being petty.

I'm not being petty at all. Your hypothesis predicts that there will be unique enzymes. Is that true? It's really important if you give a damn.

They are unique in the sense that they only catalyze one reaction.  This is true of all enzymes generally.

--------------
"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: Feb. 27 2009,18:53   

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 27 2009,06:30)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 26 2009,18:54)
 
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:10)

That is his choice.

If he wants to "teach the controversy", it's time for him to put up what he believes to be the case.  What he should describe is what his version has or does with respect to:

1:  Evidence

2:  Predictions

3:  Repeatability

4:  Falsification

Those all, and if you know more Louis let's have them, need to be shown by Daniel if he wants anyone to take him seriously.

Right now Daniel, here's a hint.  All you have is a postulate.  You believe that life came about in some certain manner.  That's it.  Can you take it higher?

I'm guessing you've not read most of what I've posted since coming here in September of 2007 - since you seem to be trying to lump me into some generic "ID" category.

I'm not claiming my views are "science" for starters.  They're just my views - based on theology, personal experience, science, bias, etc.

I'm not advocating "teaching the controversy" nor am I attempting to hide my Christianity in a scientific theory.

I'm just here to discuss my thoughts.

I have read your stuff and quite frankly I don't see any theory.  I see wishful thinking, tautological arguments and "I believe it to be" but no theories.

As for "lumping ID into a generic theory", aren't you even more a abuser of "lumping things together"?  In creation circles, cosmology, stellar evolution, galactic evolution, planetary formation, abioginesis and evolution are all the same thing.  You do know that they are different, right?

Even "evolution" has different components.

Now as you are saying that your views are not scientific but your views, that honest of you.  Tell me then, why is your views and perception of how the world works any better than a devout Hindu and how his gods made it all?

Discussing ones thoughts is a noble pursuit.  What is even more noble is learning from sources you don't agree and giving them a truly unbiased hearing even if it goes against one's personal dogma.

If you had read "my stuff", you'd know that I've never claimed to have a "theory".  If I mentioned a "God theory" or a "God hypothesis" in my posts it was usually in response to someone else who had referred to my views as such.

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

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2009,19:03   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 27 2009,19:53)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 27 2009,06:30)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 26 2009,18:54)
   
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:10)

That is his choice.

If he wants to "teach the controversy", it's time for him to put up what he believes to be the case.  What he should describe is what his version has or does with respect to:

1:  Evidence

2:  Predictions

3:  Repeatability

4:  Falsification

Those all, and if you know more Louis let's have them, need to be shown by Daniel if he wants anyone to take him seriously.

Right now Daniel, here's a hint.  All you have is a postulate.  You believe that life came about in some certain manner.  That's it.  Can you take it higher?

I'm guessing you've not read most of what I've posted since coming here in September of 2007 - since you seem to be trying to lump me into some generic "ID" category.

I'm not claiming my views are "science" for starters.  They're just my views - based on theology, personal experience, science, bias, etc.

I'm not advocating "teaching the controversy" nor am I attempting to hide my Christianity in a scientific theory.

I'm just here to discuss my thoughts.

I have read your stuff and quite frankly I don't see any theory.  I see wishful thinking, tautological arguments and "I believe it to be" but no theories.

As for "lumping ID into a generic theory", aren't you even more a abuser of "lumping things together"?  In creation circles, cosmology, stellar evolution, galactic evolution, planetary formation, abioginesis and evolution are all the same thing.  You do know that they are different, right?

Even "evolution" has different components.

Now as you are saying that your views are not scientific but your views, that honest of you.  Tell me then, why is your views and perception of how the world works any better than a devout Hindu and how his gods made it all?

Discussing ones thoughts is a noble pursuit.  What is even more noble is learning from sources you don't agree and giving them a truly unbiased hearing even if it goes against one's personal dogma.

If you had read "my stuff", you'd know that I've never claimed to have a "theory".  If I mentioned a "God theory" or a "God hypothesis" in my posts it was usually in response to someone else who had referred to my views as such.

You don't know shit

You don't want to know shit.

You think you can save some of the intelligent educated segment of the culture from being punished by your penis god.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2009,02:36   

Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 27 2009,16:30)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 26 2009,18:54)
Quote (FrankH @ Feb. 25 2009,12:10)

That is his choice.

If he wants to "teach the controversy", it's time for him to put up what he believes to be the case.  What he should describe is what his version has or does with respect to:

1:  Evidence

2:  Predictions

3:  Repeatability

4:  Falsification

Those all, and if you know more Louis let's have them, need to be shown by Daniel if he wants anyone to take him seriously.

Right now Daniel, here's a hint.  All you have is a postulate.  You believe that life came about in some certain manner.  That's it.  Can you take it higher?

I'm guessing you've not read most of what I've posted since coming here in September of 2007 - since you seem to be trying to lump me into some generic "ID" category.

I'm not claiming my views are "science" for starters.  They're just my views - based on theology, personal experience, science, bias, etc.

I'm not advocating "teaching the controversy" nor am I attempting to hide my Christianity in a scientific theory.

I'm just here to discuss my thoughts.

I have read your stuff and quite frankly I don't see any theory.  I see wishful thinking, tautological arguments and "I believe it to be" but no theories.

As for "lumping ID into a generic theory", aren't you even more a abuser of "lumping things together"?  In creation circles, cosmology, stellar evolution, galactic evolution, planetary formation, abioginesis and evolution are all the same thing.  You do know that they are different, right?

Even "evolution" has different components.

Now as you are saying that your views are not scientific but your views, that honest of you.  Tell me then, why is your views and perception of how the world works any better than a devout Hindu and how his gods made it all?

Discussing ones thoughts is a noble pursuit.  What is even more noble is learning from sources you don't agree and giving them a truly unbiased hearing even if it goes against one's personal dogma.

you forgot plate tectonics, nuclear physics and talking snakes with legs.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2009,02:38   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 28 2009,02:48)
Quote (JAM @ Feb. 26 2009,17:02)
Back to the original point...
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:31)
     
Quote (JAM @ Jan. 26 2009,13:45)
(feel free to move this to the Bathroom Wall, but I hope it's specific enough to stand alone)

On his blog, Daniel Smith offered a tasty slice of arrogance.

I'd like to go through it point by point, to show that what Dan is doing is (quite dishonestly) presenting his assumptions as facts. His bar is so high because it is supported with lies.

However, his assumptions are testable predictions of a scientific "Hypothesis of Impossibility."

So, will Dan test his inadvertent hypotheses or simply assert that he is right? Or will he simply assert that we are bad?

Passing by his initial red herrings for the hypotheses, here goes...
           
Quote
In E. coli, (one of the simplest unicellular lifeforms on the planet), the amino acids aspartic acid, asparagine, lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine are synthesized from the compound oxaloacetate via a series of biochemical steps - each of which requires its own unique enzyme, (remember?).

No, Dan, I don't remember that.

The reality here is that your hypothesis simply predicts that each biochemical step REQUIRES its own UNIQUE enzyme.

Is this prediction empirically true? Please define "requires" and "unique" before responding, and when you respond, man up and cite DATA. No passing the buck with quotes.

I got my information from my Biochemistry textbook JAM.

I don't believe you, Dan.
   
Quote
It states in the text that each step in this biochemical pathway is catalyzed by its own unique enzyme.

What it states is irrelevant. What matters is that you have a prediction here, and we should find out whether it is consistent with the data.

I realize that you want to pass the buck, but that's just more evidence of your fundamental dishonesty in these matters.

So, I'll ask again. Is each step in the biochemical pathway catalyzed by its own unique enzyme? What exactly do you mean by "unique" in this context anyway? Doesn't your implicit hypothesis clearly predict that the enzymes will not be related to each other?

   
Quote
I used the term "requires" because the present system requires those enzymes to work.


But if your goal is to assert that the present system could not have evolved from a past system that didn't require these allegedly unique enzymes, your point is moot.

   
Quote
If you're going to quibble about minutia, forget it.  You know what I mean, you're just being petty.

I'm not being petty at all. Your hypothesis predicts that there will be unique enzymes. Is that true? It's really important if you give a damn.

They are unique in the sense that they only catalyze one reaction.  This is true of all enzymes generally.

that statement might be profound if it didn't come from a stupid industrial PCB board jockey.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2009,04:48   

Daniel,
You reaping what you've sown yet or what?

Enjoying the atmosphere you've created?

Don't you have TVs that need repairing? Or bicycles?

Mr Cudsworth, why don't you crawl back to UD.

I notice you never denied that accusation.

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

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2009,09:20   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 27 2009,18:48)
They are unique in the sense that they only catalyze one reaction.

Your assertions are not evidence. If you're wrong, what does that do to the house of cards you've constructed?
Quote
This is true of all enzymes generally.

This is false of all enzymes universally.

If you're right, how is it that I'm able to mutate enzymes to handle new, synthetic substrates without losing their ability to handle their natural ones?

If you had an open mind, you'd check before pontificating.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2009,09:25   

Quote (JAM @ Feb. 28 2009,09:20)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 27 2009,18:48)
They are unique in the sense that they only catalyze one reaction.

Your assertions are not evidence. If you're wrong, what does that do to the house of cards you've constructed?
 
Quote
This is true of all enzymes generally.

This is false of all enzymes universally.

If you're right, how is it that I'm able to mutate enzymes to handle new, synthetic substrates without losing their ability to handle their natural ones?

If you had an open mind, you'd check before pontificating.

I was wondering if someone would take Daniel to task for this error. Thanks, JAM!

But I predict that, in his usual manner, Daniel will not let scientific facts get in the way of his conclusion.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2009,10:13   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 25 2009,03:07)
Is Denial really Thomas Cudworth?
 
Quote
I don’t want to hear, for the umpteenth time, how a light-sensistive spot might have retreated into a depression, and then could have been accidentally covered over by some semi-transparent skin which later could have become a lens, etc. I want to see specific mechanisms for all of these changes in terms of particular point mutations along the genome, and related developmental changes. I want to see checkable numbers given for mutation rates, I want full lists of ecological competitors inhabiting the Ordovician ocean, I want accurate CO2 and ultra-violet levels and other relevant environmental data over the period of time in question, etc. Most such details are lacking in Darwinian accounts. We can’t test the efficacy of RM + NS if we don’t have precise information regarding both the mutation side and the selection side.

an-open-challenge-to-neo-darwinists-what-would-it-take-to-falsify-your-theory/
If not, they are brothers in tard.

OM you bastard you beat me to it by some 20 odd hours.

Note that this design inference was the fisherian type and not the bayesian sort of thing.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2009,12:19   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 28 2009,11:13)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Feb. 25 2009,03:07)
Is Denial really Thomas Cudworth?
   
Quote
I don’t want to hear, for the umpteenth time, how a light-sensistive spot might have retreated into a depression, and then could have been accidentally covered over by some semi-transparent skin which later could have become a lens, etc. I want to see specific mechanisms for all of these changes in terms of particular point mutations along the genome, and related developmental changes. I want to see checkable numbers given for mutation rates, I want full lists of ecological competitors inhabiting the Ordovician ocean, I want accurate CO2 and ultra-violet levels and other relevant environmental data over the period of time in question, etc. Most such details are lacking in Darwinian accounts. We can’t test the efficacy of RM + NS if we don’t have precise information regarding both the mutation side and the selection side.

an-open-challenge-to-neo-darwinists-what-would-it-take-to-falsify-your-theory/
If not, they are brothers in tard.

OM you bastard you beat me to it by some 20 odd hours.

Note that this design inference was the fisherian type and not the bayesian sort of thing.

Two guys drinking from the same toilet bowl, IMHO.

ETA: Cudworth doth emit a mighty wind.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2009,12:55   

Quote (JAM @ Feb. 28 2009,07:20)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 27 2009,18:48)
They are unique in the sense that they only catalyze one reaction.

Your assertions are not evidence. If you're wrong, what does that do to the house of cards you've constructed?
       
Quote
This is true of all enzymes generally.

This is false of all enzymes universally.

If you're right, how is it that I'm able to mutate enzymes to handle new, synthetic substrates without losing their ability to handle their natural ones?

If you had an open mind, you'd check before pontificating.

I see you are going to continue to split hairs here JAM so I must first clarify terms:

Enzymes are not unique - as in "one of a kind".  There are countless copies of any particular enzyme in the universe.

Enzymes are unique like parts coming off an assembly line are unique - they are unique in their design.  The countless copies of phosphofructokinase in the universe all catalyze fructose-6-phosphate + ATP to fructose-1,6-bisphosphate + ADP.

Just like parts coming off an assembly line can be modified to perform additional functions, so too can enzymes.  They are not immutable.

You can take a TV and add a dvd player to it and get one of those handy TV/dvd player combos.  You can do that to individual TVs and dvd players without too much trouble, but in order to mass produce such a unit you must alter the assembly line itself.  Similarly, altering an individual enzyme is not the same as mass producing the altered enzyme.  In order for an organism to produce an altered enzyme, the biosynthetic processes that produce that enzyme must be altered.

Now, without direct knowledge of what you're doing; what enzyme you are altering and how, I cannot speak to your specific example.  I can only speak in a general sense.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2009,12:59   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 28 2009,12:55)
Enzymes are unique like parts coming off an assembly line are unique - they are unique in their design.  The countless copies of phosphofructokinase in the universe all catalyze fructose-6-phosphate + ATP to fructose-1,6-bisphosphate + ADP.

Hey, yeah man, like every copy of phosphofructokinase in the universe is also, get this man, you are gonna love this, every copy of phosphofructokinase in the universe is in fact made of the same thing - protons, neutrons and electrons

Like, wow man, I really hear what you are saying.

These "assembly line parts" are unique in their design, man. An electron is designed to be an electron and a neutron is not, like, an electron by design man.

That's some heavy shit man, go slow from now on brother! When you are a bit more with it man I'll tell you about a rumour that I heard that the protons, like man, are not even the end of it, there's like more stuff inside man! I know, crazy stuff.

Pass it over then mon!

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2009,13:02   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 28 2009,12:55)
Enzymes are not unique - as in "one of a kind".  There are countless copies of any particular enzyme in the universe.



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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2009,13:24   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 28 2009,12:55)
 
Quote (JAM @ Feb. 28 2009,07:20)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 27 2009,18:48)
They are unique in the sense that they only catalyze one reaction.

Your assertions are not evidence. If you're wrong, what does that do to the house of cards you've constructed?
           
Quote
This is true of all enzymes generally.

This is false of all enzymes universally.

If you're right, how is it that I'm able to mutate enzymes to handle new, synthetic substrates without losing their ability to handle their natural ones?

If you had an open mind, you'd check before pontificating.

I see you are going to continue to split hairs here JAM so I must first clarify terms:

Enzymes are not unique - as in "one of a kind".  There are countless copies of any particular enzyme in the universe.

Enzymes are unique like parts coming off an assembly line are unique - they are unique in their design.  The countless copies of phosphofructokinase in the universe all catalyze fructose-6-phosphate + ATP to fructose-1,6-bisphosphate + ADP.

Just like parts coming off an assembly line can be modified to perform additional functions, so too can enzymes.  They are not immutable.

You can take a TV and add a dvd player to it and get one of those handy TV/dvd player combos.  You can do that to individual TVs and dvd players without too much trouble, but in order to mass produce such a unit you must alter the assembly line itself.  Similarly, altering an individual enzyme is not the same as mass producing the altered enzyme.  In order for an organism to produce an altered enzyme, the biosynthetic processes that produce that enzyme must be altered.

Now, without direct knowledge of what you're doing; what enzyme you are altering and how, I cannot speak to your specific example.  I can only speak in a general sense.

Jeez, I can't help myself. SIWOTI syndrome is an evil affliction...

Daniel, you missed the point that JAM was making. No surprise there, but in order to get you back on track, try reading this, or here.

Or take a biochemistry course so that you can better pretend that you know what you are blathering about here.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2009,13:53   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 28 2009,12:55)
   
Quote (JAM @ Feb. 28 2009,07:20)
             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 27 2009,18:48)
They are unique in the sense that they only catalyze one reaction.

Your assertions are not evidence. If you're wrong, what does that do to the house of cards you've constructed?
             
Quote
This is true of all enzymes generally.

This is false of all enzymes universally.

If you're right, how is it that I'm able to mutate enzymes to handle new, synthetic substrates without losing their ability to handle their natural ones?

If you had an open mind, you'd check before pontificating.

I see you are going to continue to split hairs here JAM so I must first clarify terms:

Dan, you are simply being dishonest here. What I am doing is the antithesis of splitting hairs. I am calling you on your blatant lie about a universal finding in biology.

And yes, it's not merely an error, it's an outright, deliberate, lie. You are clearly bearing false witness. Why is lying about biology more important than following the Ninth Commandment?
 
Quote
Enzymes are not unique - as in "one of a kind".  There are countless copies of any particular enzyme in the universe.

Your dishonest use of the straw man fallacy is utterly irrelevant to your lie, which was:
 
Quote
They are unique in the sense that they only catalyze one reaction.

That claim is a ginormous LIE. You are making a false statement with the deliberate intent of deceiving your audience.
 
Quote
Enzymes are unique like parts coming off an assembly line are unique - they are unique in their design.

No, they are anything but. Telling more lies does not help you.
 
Quote
The countless copies of phosphofructokinase in the universe all catalyze fructose-6-phosphate + ATP to fructose-1,6-bisphosphate + ADP.

Now you are desperately running away from your lie. Your lie necessitates that phosphofructokinase catalyzes ONLY this reaction, and that is an utter lie for EVERY enzyme.
 
Quote
Just like parts coming off an assembly line can be modified to perform additional functions, so too can enzymes.  They are not immutable.

I didn't claim they were, Liar for Jesus.

I pointed out that your claim that enzymes catalyze a single reaction is universally false. For example, when I changed these enzymes to hydrolyze synthetic substrates, the data show that everything is relative. IOW, neither the wild-type nor the mutant EVER had ZERO activity for ANY of the substrates, natural or synthetic.

You are simply, unequivocally lying, Dan.
 
Quote
You can take a TV and add a dvd player to it and get one of those handy TV/dvd player combos.  You can do that to individual TVs and dvd players without too much trouble, but in order to mass produce such a unit you must alter the assembly line itself.

That's not even remotely analogous.
 
Quote
Similarly, altering an individual enzyme is not the same as mass producing the altered enzyme.

WTF? How in the hell could I have measured the selectivity of these enzymes for different substrates if I didn't mass produce them?

Do you realize how you're digging an even deeper hole for yourself?

I'll ask you again. Entertain the possibility that you are wrong. What would it mean?
 
Quote
In order for an organism to produce an altered enzyme, the biosynthetic processes that produce that enzyme must be altered.

"Knocking in" the single aa change into the mouse genome altered no "biosynthetic processes" at all, and more importantly, produced no observable abnormalities in the homozygous mutant mice. You're simply lying.
 
Quote
Now, without direct knowledge of what you're doing; what enzyme you are altering and how, I cannot speak to your specific example.  I can only speak in a general sense.

Your global claim completely encompasses what we did. Therefore, if you are correct, my colleagues and I must be either frauds or gods.

WTF makes you so sure that I only have a single example, anyway?

You are arrogant and fundamentally dishonest, Dan. You just claimed that our research during the last 9 years is impossible.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,01:56   

I don't seem to see the modification of "biosynthetic process" in this application. It looks to me like they just added DNA for human insulin to the bacterial beta-galactosidase gene.

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

    
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,09:39   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2009,01:56)
I don't seem to see the modification of "biosynthetic process" in this application. It looks to me like they just added DNA for human insulin to the bacterial beta-galactosidase gene.

And ours involved changing two nucleotides to change a single amino acid, a third nucleotide (translationally silent) to produce a diagnostic restriction endonuclease site, and the two loxP recombinase recognition sequences in the flanking introns required for the knockin.

But the bigger point I'd like to discuss here is the one that I opened the thread with -- that Daniel's rank dishonesty is the end product of an implicit scientific process:

1) Dan actually has an internally coherent ID hypothesis rattling around in his brain.

2) His hypothesis predicts that the intelligently-designed enzymes must be unique--they cannot be related to other enzymes and they cannot catalyze multiple reactions.

3) Dan is an intellectual coward and afraid to consider that his hypothesis might be false. Therefore, he lies, asserting that the prediction, which he has stated as "[each amino acid] requires its own unique [synthetic] enzyme," and "They are unique in the sense that they only catalyze one reaction.  This is true of all enzymes generally."

4) Since both of these assertions are spectacularly false, Dan's ID hypothesis is clearly falsified.

Put another way, the point I'm trying to make is that ID can be viewed as a scientific hypothesis, and that our public efforts might be better spent by educating the public about the scientific method and using ID as an explicit example of a false hypothesis. ID proponents are simply lying and asserting that the predictions are true instead of testing them empirically.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,12:38   

I think that casting "intelligent design" as a scientific hypothesis suffers from a major flaw: it isn't.

"Intelligent design" advocates do sometimes, as the prior religious antievolution effort of "creation science" did, offer claims that can be shown to be false. This doesn't make "intelligent design" creationism itself a scientific claim. Anybody can spout ad hoc claims that can be checked against reality. What's at issue in calling "intelligent design" scientific is that there is some link between the specific claims and the general framework, such that the truth value of the specific claims actually impinges upon that framework. This is the case when a framework entails a particular claim.

Philosophically, it makes no sense to say that ID is science when they haven't made even the most rudimentary progress in that direction.

Legally, the more often people mistakenly say that ID is science, the more likely IDC advocates are to be able to erroneously convince someone in the legal system that teaching IDC has a valid secular purpose. Obviously, that consequence has no bearing on the philosophical question, but you may wish to take some notice of it anyway as you advocate saying that IDC is science.

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

    
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,13:11   

The entire ID argument is based on fallacious reasoning. If irreducible complexity, aka "We don't know, therefore I know", isn't a poster child for an argument from ignorance I don't know what is.

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,14:42   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2009,12:38)
I think that casting "intelligent design" as a scientific hypothesis suffers from a major flaw: it isn't.

You're not dealing with what I actually wrote, Wesley, and what I wrote is illustrated beautifully by Dan's dishonesty in this subject. Perhaps you should reread it and reconsider your fallacious response.
   
Quote
"Intelligent design" advocates do sometimes, as the prior religious antievolution effort of "creation science" did, offer claims that can be shown to be false.

I didn't write a damn thing about "claims." Moreover, making claims has no formal place in science--when scientists get stuck on debating and supporting claims, they are no longer doing science properly. The essence of science is about attempting to demolish one's own hypotheses, so making claims and counterclaims represents a perversion of the scientific method. You've already ceded almost everything to the pseudoscientists when you frame science in this way.
   
Quote
This doesn't make "intelligent design" creationism itself a scientific claim.

I didn't claim that it was a "scientific claim," and I don't acknowledge the existence of such a critter anyway. You're employing a straw man fallacy.
   
Quote
Anybody can spout ad hoc claims that can be checked against reality.

And rigorously checking hypotheses (not claims) against reality is the very essence of science, which is revealed if we begin with an ID hypothesis. If you had bothered to read what I wrote before launching your multiple misrepresentations of it, you might notice that I'm pointing out that ID proponents refuse to do science.

I like to explain to laypeople that the people they know who do hands-on science are their car mechanics, not their physicians. This also helps to jog them out of the tendency to accept appeals to authority.

I'm also trying to point out a method for teaching this to people who don't understand the scientific method as an improvement over the pathetic state of science education in the US, which is the real problem here.
Quote
What's at issue in calling "intelligent design" scientific...

Well, first we need to deal with the fact that I didn't call "intelligent design" scientific.
   
Quote
... is that there is some link between the specific claims and the general framework, such that the truth value of the specific claims actually impinges upon that framework.

Except that science isn't supposed to be about claims. I'm supposed to be the world's harshest critic of my own hypothesis, and framing it as a "claim" moves it out of the realm of science.
Quote
This is the case when a framework entails a particular claim.

I don't see a place for claims, as you are using the term here, in any scientific framework.
Quote
Philosophically, it makes no sense to say that ID is science...

I agree. Perhaps you should reread what I wrote, as I didn't come close to saying that "ID is science."
Quote
when they haven't made even the most rudimentary progress in that direction.

That's precisely the point I'm proposing making to the public, in what I think may be a far better way that those arguing the case to the public (i.e., you) have done to date.
Quote
Legally, the more often people mistakenly say that ID is science,...

Of course, I'm not saying that "ID is science" at all. I'm proposing a way to teach the public that ID is NOT science. You are grossly misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting what I wrote. You owe me an apology.
Quote
...the more likely IDC advocates are to be able to erroneously convince someone in the legal system that teaching IDC has a valid secular purpose.
Relying on the legal system to rectify an abject failure of science education is insane.
Quote
Obviously, that consequence has no bearing on the philosophical question, but you may wish to take some notice of it anyway as you advocate saying that IDC is science.

Wow. So that's the third time you grossly misrepresented what I wrote. Why are you doing this, Wes?

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,15:00   

Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 01 2009,13:11)
The entire ID argument is based on fallacious reasoning.

Obviously. What I'm proposing is a different strategy (the ones used to date have been pathetic failures) to teach the US public that it is fallacious because science isn't about arguments and debate at all. It's about producing new data. Even false hypotheses have utility, as testing them produces new data. The problem I see is that most of the people on my side in this political debate aren't very good at producing new data.
Quote
If irreducible complexity, aka "We don't know, therefore I know", isn't a poster child for an argument from ignorance I don't know what is.

That's not what IC is. IC is simply a definition that does a fine rhetorical job of obscuring Behe's actual hypothesis--that structures that meet the ever-changing definition of IC must have been designed because they could not have evolved. That hypothesis makes predictions (the hypothesis, not the people pushing it).

The approach I propose is to:

1) Offer examples of science in daily life, such as repairing cars, in which the scientist has little-to-no stake in any particular hypothesis.

2) Offer examples of my own hypotheses and detail the extent to which I am responsible for attempting to falsify them. Debate has no formal place in this process.

3) Then, without naming names and before making a claim or judgment, get laypeople to dissect out Behe's hidden hypothesis and to ask if Behe has bothered to test its predictions.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,16:17   

Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2009,07:39)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2009,01:56)
I don't seem to see the modification of "biosynthetic process" in this application. It looks to me like they just added DNA for human insulin to the bacterial beta-galactosidase gene.

And ours involved changing two nucleotides to change a single amino acid, a third nucleotide (translationally silent) to produce a diagnostic restriction endonuclease site, and the two loxP recombinase recognition sequences in the flanking introns required for the knockin.

But the bigger point I'd like to discuss here is the one that I opened the thread with -- that Daniel's rank dishonesty is the end product of an implicit scientific process:

1) Dan actually has an internally coherent ID hypothesis rattling around in his brain.

2) His hypothesis predicts that the intelligently-designed enzymes must be unique--they cannot be related to other enzymes and they cannot catalyze multiple reactions.

3) Dan is an intellectual coward and afraid to consider that his hypothesis might be false. Therefore, he lies, asserting that the prediction, which he has stated as "[each amino acid] requires its own unique [synthetic] enzyme," and "They are unique in the sense that they only catalyze one reaction.  This is true of all enzymes generally."

4) Since both of these assertions are spectacularly false, Dan's ID hypothesis is clearly falsified.

Put another way, the point I'm trying to make is that ID can be viewed as a scientific hypothesis, and that our public efforts might be better spent by educating the public about the scientific method and using ID as an explicit example of a false hypothesis. ID proponents are simply lying and asserting that the predictions are true instead of testing them empirically.

My argument does not predict that enzymes "cannot be related to other enzymes".  I've never said enzymes can't be related - I'm saying that no one can explain the specific processes that brought about the E. coli amino acid synthesis pathway.  Specifically considering the fact that enzymes are constructed from amino acids.  It's a classic chicken/egg scenario.  Neither does my argument predict that enzymes "cannot catalyze multiple reactions".  That's two strawmen JAM.  My argument states that each reaction in the E. coli amino acid synthesis pathway requires a specific, unique (as in - no other enzyme will do) enzyme.

Now, you might counter this by showing that some other enzymes can be substituted into the pathway and still produce the same amino acids.  That would be a valid counter (though it still wouldn't explain the origin of the synthetic pathway).  But I fail to see how altering an enzyme so that it catalyzes more than one reaction has anything whatsoever to do with my argument.

--------------
"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: Mar. 01 2009,16:23   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 26 2009,18:13)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 26 2009,19:46)
This book was published in 1982.  How well does recent evidence fit?  It seems to me that there is mounting evidence against the "explanatory framework of the Darwinian theory".

I've already predicted several times that - as evidence mounts - gradualistic mechanisms will fall by the wayside.

We'll see...

Heh.

Half your argument is based on personal experiences and theological longings - good luck with that - and half on obsolete science and idiosyncratic seemings.

I think we should wrap this up.

Are you conceding then that no current biological system can be explained by the "sheer accumulation of micro-mutations"?

By your 'snippage' and lack of response to that question, I'm thinking you already know you've lost that argument.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,16:27   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,16:23)
Are you conceding then that no current biological system can be explained by the "sheer accumulation of micro-mutations"?

By your 'snippage' and lack of response to that question, I'm thinking you already know you've lost that argument.

Citrate!

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

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,16:38   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,16:17)
My argument does not predict that enzymes "cannot be related to other enzymes".

Arguments don't make predictions. Hypotheses do.

How cowardly of you to avoid responding to my direct response to your post, Dan.
Quote
I've never said enzymes can't be related -

I didn't say you SAID that, goofball. Your (implicit) hypothesis predicts no reason whatsoever for them to be related.
Quote
I'm saying that no one can explain the specific processes that brought about the E. coli amino acid synthesis pathway.

I'm saying that you're lying like a rug and you're moving the goalposts when you are called on it.
Quote
Specifically considering the fact that enzymes are constructed from amino acids.  It's a classic chicken/egg scenario.

Not even close, since RNAs can be catalytic.
Quote
Neither does my argument predict that enzymes "cannot catalyze multiple reactions".

You claimed it explicitly. You wrote:
Quote

1) They are unique in the sense that they only catalyze one reaction.

That was a lie. There's zero difference between "cannot catalyze multiple reactions" and "only catalyze one reaction.
Quote
2) ...they are unique in their design.

That's a lie too.
Quote
3) In order for an organism to produce an altered enzyme, the biosynthetic processes that produce that enzyme must be altered.

That's a third lie that you've utterly failed to address.
Quote
That's two strawmen JAM.

That's zero, Dan.
Quote
My argument states that each reaction in the E. coli amino acid synthesis pathway requires a specific, unique (as in - no other enzyme will do) enzyme.

But they don't.
Quote
Now, you might counter this by showing that some other enzymes can be substituted into the pathway and still produce the same amino acids.

But science isn't about debate. It's your responsibility to test the predictions of your hypothesis instead of lying and stating them as facts.
Quote
That would be a valid counter (though it still wouldn't explain the origin of the synthetic pathway).  But I fail to see how altering an enzyme so that it catalyzes more than one reaction has anything whatsoever to do with my argument.

It has everything to do with it.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,16:44   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Feb. 28 2009,23:56)
I don't seem to see the modification of "biosynthetic process" in this application. It looks to me like they just added DNA for human insulin to the bacterial beta-galactosidase gene.

To use my analogy, the assembly line was altered to add human DNA to the gene coding for the B-galactosidase enzyme.  While it is merely an "add on", the production of an insulin-carrying enzyme is a biosynthetic process not native to E. coli.

They also had to use a weakened mutant strain of E. coli that would not degrade the insulin once it was produced.

I think both of those qualify as modifications of biosynthetic processes.

--------------
"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: Mar. 01 2009,17:00   

Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2009,14:38)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,16:17)
My argument does not predict that enzymes "cannot be related to other enzymes".

Arguments don't make predictions. Hypotheses do.

How cowardly of you to avoid responding to my direct response to your post, Dan.
     
Quote
I've never said enzymes can't be related -

I didn't say you SAID that, goofball. Your (implicit) hypothesis predicts no reason whatsoever for them to be related.
     
Quote
I'm saying that no one can explain the specific processes that brought about the E. coli amino acid synthesis pathway.

I'm saying that you're lying like a rug and you're moving the goalposts when you are called on it.

I'm not moving any goalposts JAM.  My Argument from Impossibility is the goalposts. (Strawman #3)
     
Quote
 
Quote
Specifically considering the fact that enzymes are constructed from amino acids.  It's a classic chicken/egg scenario.

Not even close, since RNAs can be catalytic.

How about laying out an an amino acid synthesis pathway using only ribozymes then?
   
Quote
   
Quote
Neither does my argument predict that enzymes "cannot catalyze multiple reactions".

You claimed it explicitly. You wrote:
     
Quote

1) They are unique in the sense that they only catalyze one reaction.

That was a lie. There's zero difference between "cannot catalyze multiple reactions" and "only catalyze one reaction.

I said (and you snipped) the fact that that was a general statement.  That means it is not an absolute statement - though you insist on treating it as such.  (Stawman #4)
   
Quote
   
Quote
2) ...they are unique in their design.

That's a lie too.

How so?
     
Quote
 
Quote
3) In order for an organism to produce an altered enzyme, the biosynthetic processes that produce that enzyme must be altered.

That's a third lie that you've utterly failed to address.

How so?
   
Quote
 
Quote
That's two strawmen JAM.

That's zero, Dan.

By my count you're up to at least four.
   
Quote
   
Quote
My argument states that each reaction in the E. coli amino acid synthesis pathway requires a specific, unique (as in - no other enzyme will do) enzyme.

But they don't.

"they don't" what?     
Quote
 
Quote
Now, you might counter this by showing that some other enzymes can be substituted into the pathway and still produce the same amino acids.

But science isn't about debate. It's your responsibility to test the predictions of your hypothesis instead of lying and stating them as facts.

I never claimed my argument was "science" JAM.  On the contrary, it predicts a failure for naturalistic science.  My argument is based on theology and observation JAM.  If you want to treat it as science, then you can falsify it by coming up with an evolutionary pathway leading up to the present E. coli aminosynthetic pathway.  Why don't you address my main claim instead of nibbling around the edges?
 
Quote
 
Quote
That would be a valid counter (though it still wouldn't explain the origin of the synthetic pathway).  But I fail to see how altering an enzyme so that it catalyzes more than one reaction has anything whatsoever to do with my argument.

It has everything to do with it.

How so?

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,19:12   

I offer this for the delectation of the collective: Some wit from John  Cooper Clarke

Louis

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,19:30   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,01:00)
Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2009,14:38)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,16:17)
My argument does not predict that enzymes "cannot be related to other enzymes".

Arguments don't make predictions. Hypotheses do.

How cowardly of you to avoid responding to my direct response to your post, Dan.
     
Quote
I've never said enzymes can't be related -

I didn't say you SAID that, goofball. Your (implicit) hypothesis predicts no reason whatsoever for them to be related.
     
Quote
I'm saying that no one can explain the specific processes that brought about the E. coli amino acid synthesis pathway.

I'm saying that you're lying like a rug and you're moving the goalposts when you are called on it.

I'm not moving any goalposts JAM.  My Argument from Impossibility is the goalposts. (Strawman #3)
     
Quote
   
Quote
Specifically considering the fact that enzymes are constructed from amino acids.  It's a classic chicken/egg scenario.

Not even close, since RNAs can be catalytic.

How about laying out an an amino acid synthesis pathway using only ribozymes then?
     
Quote
   
Quote
Neither does my argument predict that enzymes "cannot catalyze multiple reactions".

You claimed it explicitly. You wrote:
     
Quote

1) They are unique in the sense that they only catalyze one reaction.

That was a lie. There's zero difference between "cannot catalyze multiple reactions" and "only catalyze one reaction.

I said (and you snipped) the fact that that was a general statement.  That means it is not an absolute statement - though you insist on treating it as such.  (Stawman #4)
     
Quote
   
Quote
2) ...they are unique in their design.

That's a lie too.

How so?
     
Quote
   
Quote
3) In order for an organism to produce an altered enzyme, the biosynthetic processes that produce that enzyme must be altered.

That's a third lie that you've utterly failed to address.

How so?
     
Quote
   
Quote
That's two strawmen JAM.

That's zero, Dan.

By my count you're up to at least four.
     
Quote
   
Quote
My argument states that each reaction in the E. coli amino acid synthesis pathway requires a specific, unique (as in - no other enzyme will do) enzyme.

But they don't.

"they don't" what?     
Quote
   
Quote
Now, you might counter this by showing that some other enzymes can be substituted into the pathway and still produce the same amino acids.

But science isn't about debate. It's your responsibility to test the predictions of your hypothesis instead of lying and stating them as facts.

I never claimed my argument was "science" JAM.  On the contrary, it predicts a failure for naturalistic science.  My argument is based on theology and observation JAM.  If you want to treat it as science, then you can falsify it by coming up with an evolutionary pathway leading up to the present E. coli aminosynthetic pathway.  Why don't you address my main claim instead of nibbling around the edges?
 
Quote
   
Quote
That would be a valid counter (though it still wouldn't explain the origin of the synthetic pathway).  But I fail to see how altering an enzyme so that it catalyzes more than one reaction has anything whatsoever to do with my argument.

It has everything to do with it.

How so?

How so indeed.

Daniel what you don't get is this.

You cannot tell a truth from a lie.

You accept a lie as thruth.

No prizes for guessing what that lie might be.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,20:10   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,17:23)
         
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Feb. 26 2009,18:13)
               
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 26 2009,19:46)
This book was published in 1982.  How well does recent evidence fit?  It seems to me that there is mounting evidence against the "explanatory framework of the Darwinian theory".

I've already predicted several times that - as evidence mounts - gradualistic mechanisms will fall by the wayside.

We'll see...

Heh.

Half your argument is based on personal experiences and theological longings - good luck with that - and half on obsolete science and idiosyncratic seemings.

I think we should wrap this up.

Are you conceding then that no current biological system can be explained by the "sheer accumulation of micro-mutations"?

By your 'snippage' and lack of response to that question, I'm thinking you already know you've lost that argument.

I'm saying that half your argument is based on personal experiences and theological longings (you freely admit that above), the rest on obsolete science (also established above vis your heros Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, etc.) buttressed by idiosyncratic, unsupported speculations about future findings (which you report ad nauseam above). If that causes you to swell with a sense of victory, I'd wager you also own a stack of sticky magazines.

If you are unable to comprehend Mayr's point vis speciation, just say so and we'll help you with that.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,20:23   

Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2009,14:42)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 01 2009,12:38)
I think that casting "intelligent design" as a scientific hypothesis suffers from a major flaw: it isn't.

You're not dealing with what I actually wrote, Wesley, and what I wrote is illustrated beautifully by Dan's dishonesty in this subject. Perhaps you should reread it and reconsider your fallacious response.
             
Quote
"Intelligent design" advocates do sometimes, as the prior religious antievolution effort of "creation science" did, offer claims that can be shown to be false.

I didn't write a damn thing about "claims." Moreover, making claims has no formal place in science--when scientists get stuck on debating and supporting claims, they are no longer doing science properly. The essence of science is about attempting to demolish one's own hypotheses, so making claims and counterclaims represents a perversion of the scientific method. You've already ceded almost everything to the pseudoscientists when you frame science in this way.
             
Quote
This doesn't make "intelligent design" creationism itself a scientific claim.

I didn't claim that it was a "scientific claim," and I don't acknowledge the existence of such a critter anyway. You're employing a straw man fallacy.
             
Quote
Anybody can spout ad hoc claims that can be checked against reality.

And rigorously checking hypotheses (not claims) against reality is the very essence of science, which is revealed if we begin with an ID hypothesis. If you had bothered to read what I wrote before launching your multiple misrepresentations of it, you might notice that I'm pointing out that ID proponents refuse to do science.

I like to explain to laypeople that the people they know who do hands-on science are their car mechanics, not their physicians. This also helps to jog them out of the tendency to accept appeals to authority.

I'm also trying to point out a method for teaching this to people who don't understand the scientific method as an improvement over the pathetic state of science education in the US, which is the real problem here.
         
Quote
What's at issue in calling "intelligent design" scientific...

Well, first we need to deal with the fact that I didn't call "intelligent design" scientific.
             
Quote
... is that there is some link between the specific claims and the general framework, such that the truth value of the specific claims actually impinges upon that framework.

Except that science isn't supposed to be about claims. I'm supposed to be the world's harshest critic of my own hypothesis, and framing it as a "claim" moves it out of the realm of science.
         
Quote
This is the case when a framework entails a particular claim.

I don't see a place for claims, as you are using the term here, in any scientific framework.
         
Quote
Philosophically, it makes no sense to say that ID is science...

I agree. Perhaps you should reread what I wrote, as I didn't come close to saying that "ID is science."
         
Quote
when they haven't made even the most rudimentary progress in that direction.

That's precisely the point I'm proposing making to the public, in what I think may be a far better way that those arguing the case to the public (i.e., you) have done to date.
         
Quote
Legally, the more often people mistakenly say that ID is science,...

Of course, I'm not saying that "ID is science" at all. I'm proposing a way to teach the public that ID is NOT science. You are grossly misunderstanding and/or misrepresenting what I wrote. You owe me an apology.
       
Quote
...the more likely IDC advocates are to be able to erroneously convince someone in the legal system that teaching IDC has a valid secular purpose.
Relying on the legal system to rectify an abject failure of science education is insane.        
Quote
Obviously, that consequence has no bearing on the philosophical question, but you may wish to take some notice of it anyway as you advocate saying that IDC is science.

Wow. So that's the third time you grossly misrepresented what I wrote. Why are you doing this, Wes?


I am saying the things I'm saying because you apparently didn't write down what you meant to say.

On re-reading JAM, in the message I was responding to, with emphasis added:

       
Quote

Put another way, the point I'm trying to make is that ID can be viewed as a scientific hypothesis, and that our public efforts might be better spent by educating the public about the scientific method and using ID as an explicit example of a false hypothesis. ID proponents are simply lying and asserting that the predictions are true instead of testing them empirically.


The above makes no sense if what you are trying to say is that IDC doesn't qualify as science. False scientific hypotheses are still scientific. I made an argument clarifying that situation. I also made an observation about the legal ramifications. There is no constitutional prohibition against teaching bad science, just religious doctrines. That was not and is not a statement that it is desirable to pitch the resolution of these issues to the courts.

The reason I brought up claims is that what IDC advocates have provided that can be checked are ad hoc claims, not hypotheses, and especially not scientific hypotheses. Your suggestion that we treat IDC as a scientific hypothesis (your phrasing, as documented in the quote above) suffers from the defect that there isn't such a critter. The situation where claims are made and some people mistakenly call those scientific hypotheses, as in creation science, is precisely relevant to your quoted suggestion.

I have not been reticent in making the argument that IDC advocates fail to test their conjectures and claims (I will not falsely refer to them as hypotheses); if one is proposing a hypothesis that I have not done so, one can find empirical disproof in, for one example, the video of the June 17, 2001 debates at Haverford College (see links at bottom here.

I think that when one examines the evidence here, one will find that I did read your words accurately and responded to them reasonably. You've got the direction of the apology 180 degrees reversed.

ETA: I'd suggest that you think of me as a proofreader rather than as an adversary.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 01 2009,20:40

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

    
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,22:24   

Quote
I am saying the things I'm saying because you apparently didn't write down what you meant to say.

I never wrote that "ID is science," yet not once, but twice, you falsely attributed that claim to me.
Quote
The above makes no sense if what you are trying to say is that IDC doesn't qualify as science.

Let's see...start with a hypothesis of ID. If ID proponents don't bother to test the predictions of their hypothesis, they aren't doing science. How is that so complicated?
Quote
False scientific hypotheses are still scientific.

I'm sorry, but that's meaningless, as you stipulated that they were scientific.
Quote
I made an argument clarifying that situation. I also made an observation about the legal ramifications.

But your argument was based on a gross misrepresentation of my statement.
Quote
There is no constitutional prohibition against teaching bad science, just religious doctrines.

But my point is that ID isn't science because they are afraid to test their hypothesis.
Quote
That was not and is not a statement that it is desirable to pitch the resolution of these issues to the courts.

But when you accept their framing of science as debate, you've ceded the high ground to them.
Quote
The reason I brought up claims is that what IDC advocates have provided that can be checked are ad hoc claims, not hypotheses, and especially not scientific hypotheses.

But that's my point. They deny that science entails testing their hypotheses, so they frame them as "arguments." You're validating that!
Quote
Your suggestion that we treat IDC as a scientific hypothesis (your phrasing, as documented in the quote above)

But YOU portrayed me--three times--as claiming that IDC is "scientific" or "science," which I did not do.
Quote
... suffers from the defect that there isn't such a critter. The situation where claims are made and some people mistakenly call those scientific hypotheses, as in creation science, is precisely relevant to your quoted suggestion.

Claims aren't hypotheses. Science isn't about arguments or debates. I feel like Jon Stewart on Crossfire.
Quote
I have not been reticent in making the argument that IDC advocates fail to test their conjectures and claims (I will not falsely refer to them as hypotheses); if one is proposing a hypothesis that I have not done so, one can find empirical disproof in, for one example, the video of the June 17, 2001 debates at Haverford College (see links at bottom here.

1) Science does not deal in proof or disproof.
2) Debating IDers or creationists is throwing in the towel, because you are effectively endorsing their idiocy that science is about debate instead of testing hypotheses.
Quote
I think that when one examines the evidence here, one will find that I did read your words accurately and responded to them reasonably. You've got the direction of the apology 180 degrees reversed.

False. Three times you misrepresented my words.
Quote
ETA: I'd suggest that you think of me as a proofreader rather than as an adversary.

Your multiple misrepresentations of my suggestion that we educate the public by "viewing ID as a scientific hypothesis" (for the explicit purpose of showing that ID proponents reject the scientific method and refuse to do science) as:

1) "calling "intelligent design" scientific"
2) "ID is science"
3) "ID is science"

is the antithesis of proofreading, as I did neither of those things.

You appear to have a vested interest in pursuing the failed strategies of the past. Why?

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,23:09   

Daniel, may I ask you a question? Why would you choose xianity over the great spirit?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,23:35   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,16:44)

To use my analogy, the assembly line was altered to add human DNA to the gene coding for the B-galactosidase enzyme.  While it is merely an "add on", the production of an insulin-carrying enzyme is a biosynthetic process not native to E. coli.

"Biosynthetic processes" are things like transcription, replication, and translation, not individual genes.

Besides, my example involved none of those things.
Quote
They also had to use a weakened mutant strain of E. coli that would not degrade the insulin once it was produced.

You're lying and conflating.

They chose a weakened strain because they don't want it to be able to compete with the E. coli in our guts. They didn't have to. They chose a strain defective in degradation because they wanted higher yields. Those were two separate things, and they didn't have to do either one.

Quote
I think both of those qualify as modifications of biosynthetic processes.

You're gonna need a back surgeon soon.

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2009,23:52   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,17:00)
How about laying out an an amino acid synthesis pathway using only ribozymes then?

Why? I'm not hypothesizing that the pathways evolved that way.

How about reading a single paper on the alleged specificity you claimed for these existing enzymes? How about citing the book in which you claimed to have read this claim?

I predict that you'll do neither because you lack faith.
 
Quote
I said (and you snipped) the fact that that was a general statement.  That means it is not an absolute statement - though you insist on treating it as such.  (Stawman #4)

It's false as an absolute statement.
It's false as a general statement.
It's even false as a specific statement for any of the enzymes to which you refer.

Is that clear enough? You're lying no matter how far you move the goalposts.
Quote
How so?

Because their designs aren't unique, obviously.

Quote
My argument states that each reaction in the E. coli amino acid synthesis pathway requires a specific, unique (as in - no other enzyme will do) enzyme.

Quote
"they don't" what?
 
The reactions don't require specific, unique enzymes. You can't even be bothered to look at whether they are specific before you claim that your assumption is fact.

That's bearing false witness.
 
Quote
I never claimed my argument was "science" JAM.  On the contrary, it predicts a failure for naturalistic science.

How confident are you in that prediction, and in your assumptions? I mean, you stated them as fact, so you must be absolutely sure they are factual, correct?

How much is your house worth? Your car?
Quote
My argument is based on theology and observation JAM.

Your theology is characterized by lack of faith and refusal to observe reality.
Quote
If you want to treat it as science, then you can falsify it by coming up with an evolutionary pathway leading up to the present E. coli aminosynthetic pathway.

No, I can falsify your whole shebang simply by showing that any one of the enzymes you named is selective, not specific, for substrates.
Quote
How so?

Because changing the selectivity of an enzyme is trivial. You lie and claim the opposite.

  
dnmlthr



Posts: 565
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,01:12   

Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2009,21:00)
Quote
If irreducible complexity, aka "We don't know, therefore I know", isn't a poster child for an argument from ignorance I don't know what is.

That's not what IC is. IC is simply a definition that does a fine rhetorical job of obscuring Behe's actual hypothesis--that structures that meet the ever-changing definition of IC must have been designed because they could not have evolved. That hypothesis makes predictions (the hypothesis, not the people pushing it).

The IC argument relies on our ignorance, as it falls back on a default explanation as soon as a phenomena is unexplained by other means. How is that supposed to be tested?

--------------
Guess what? I don't give a flying f*ck how "science works" - Ftk

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,03:42   

Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 02 2009,09:12)
Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2009,21:00)
Quote
If irreducible complexity, aka "We don't know, therefore I know", isn't a poster child for an argument from ignorance I don't know what is.

That's not what IC is. IC is simply a definition that does a fine rhetorical job of obscuring Behe's actual hypothesis--that structures that meet the ever-changing definition of IC must have been designed because they could not have evolved. That hypothesis makes predictions (the hypothesis, not the people pushing it).

The IC argument relies on our ignorance, as it falls back on a default explanation as soon as a phenomena is unexplained by other means. How is that supposed to be tested?

Oh Christ "The IC argument....blah blah blah"

Daniel still seems to think Behe's monster still has some relevance....

Remember Daniel, Behe is the same guy who thinks god could be dead and that Astrology is science by his own definition of science...he said that under oath at Dover.

Thus completely and forever discrediting anything he has said or will ever say.

"IC" is code for creationist apologetics and anti evolution through natural selection, it is a completely useless idea with no power legally or scientifically.

Not just that, everyone who uses the term uses their own private definitions for "I" & "C" often changing them daily putting it clearly into the realm of pseudoscience which relies on peoples gulibility for the purposes of making money from rubes and nothing more.

Yes "IC" has been tested and proven......to sell books written by the morally bankrupt to the truly dimwitted

You haven't the foggiest.

Redefine "IC" if you want, but it will fail.
Much better liars than you have tried

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,04:09   

Quote
My argument is based on theology and observation


I want to know about the observation(s).

I'm wondering if they would, or would not demonstrate that Daniel is not a child molester. But more importantly I am wondering, since observation is at the heart of rational enquiry, and thus at the heart of that most successful aspect of rational enquiry, science, what observation has been found that serves as "disproof"* of evolutionary biology.

Louis

*Yes, yes, we all know the philosophical niceties. This is shorthand. I'll send a treatise on epistemology and the scientific method through the web if really needed! I'm hoping it isn't.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,09:35   

Daniel sez...
Quote
My argument is based on theology and (I'll make my observations fit that argument)


yeah yeah .....get your hand off my knee bible boy.

Your theology is incongruent with reality ....but then you already know that doncha?

Adjusting your Myth(s) to fit reality would be far more productive .....but at what cost?

Your insanity perhaps?

Can't afford a conversion?

Disbarring from your cult or even worse losing converts?

Money? Is there money involved Daniel?
Have you retired to selling prime swamp to loyal believers? Or do you get cheap rent in some fundy church old age slum?

What's in it for you Daniel?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,13:10   

JAM:

           
Quote
           
Quote

The above makes no sense if what you are trying to say is that IDC doesn't qualify as science.


Let's see...start with a hypothesis of ID. If ID proponents don't bother to test the predictions of their hypothesis, they aren't doing science. How is that so complicated?


It is not complicated, but it is wrong. (BTW, for someone so sensitive to phrasing, I'll note that I did not make any statement about something being "complicated".) What you propose would be sufficient to demonstrate that they would be doing science badly, not that they are not doing science. Specifically, you would establish that their practice of science is incomplete.

           
Quote
           
Quote

Your suggestion that we treat IDC as a scientific hypothesis (your phrasing, as documented in the quote above)


But YOU portrayed me--three times--as claiming that IDC is "scientific" or "science," which I did not do.


You are assuming a distinction between "having proposed a scientific hypothesis" and "is doing science" that does not exist. Your assumption is false. If somebody has a scientific hypothesis (and remember, you are on record as saying the IDC advocates should be treated as providing such), they are doing science. Historically, we consider various people as having been doing science even if they only proposed testable hypotheses and had little to nothing to do with testing those hypotheses themselves. Einstein and general relativity, for one high-profile instance. In other words, when you say "they have a scientific hypothesis", the conclusion that immediately follows, whether you are cognizant of it or not, is that "they are doing science". That they do it badly is not a qualitative distinction. And nothing you have proposed gets to a qualitative distinction that would say that the IDC advocates are not doing science once you cede to them the stipulation that they have provided a scientific hypothesis.

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

    
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,15:43   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 02 2009,13:10)
It is not complicated, but it is wrong. (BTW, for someone so sensitive to phrasing, I'll note that I did not make any statement about something being "complicated".)

I didn't claim that you did. You, however, put words in my mouth three times, with fourth and fifth attempts added in your last post.
 
Quote
What you propose would be sufficient to demonstrate that they would be doing science badly, not that they are not doing science. Specifically, you would establish that their practice of science is incomplete.

No, specifically, their "practice of science" is nonexistent, because ID proponents do not bother to put their assertions in the form of hypotheses. What I am proposing as an improvement over the sorry state of science education in the country is that we help laypeople to view their assertion as a scientific hypothesis, so that laypeople can see that ID proponents lack sufficient faith to do science by testing the empirical predictions of a hypothesis.
   
Quote
   
Quote
   
Quote
Your suggestion that we treat IDC as a scientific hypothesis (your phrasing, as documented in the quote above)

But YOU portrayed me--three times--as claiming that IDC is "scientific" or "science," which I did not do.

You are assuming a distinction between "having proposed a scientific hypothesis" and "is doing science" that does not exist.

Please, Wesley, this is turning into a farce. I never wrote the words "having proposed a scientific hypothesis," because the ID movement isn't putting their fundamental assertions in that form.

Let's try that again in another way so that it might get through to you--with rare exceptions, ID proponents do not propose scientific hypotheses because they are afraid to do so. I am proposing that we do that for them to better educate the public.

Quote
Your assumption is false.

No, your representation of what you think is my assumption is false. You teed off without thinking.
Quote
If somebody has a scientific hypothesis (and remember, you are on record as saying the IDC advocates should be treated as providing such), they are doing science.

No they aren't, because they don't view their assertions as testable hypotheses. They don't even begin doing science.
Quote
Historically, we consider various people as having been doing science even if they only proposed testable hypotheses and had little to nothing to do with testing those hypotheses themselves.

But ID proponents don't put anything in the form of a hypothesis and they run away from testing the predictions that are plainly there if we view their premises as hypotheses. They don't view them that way, therefore they are not doing science. Get it yet?
Quote
Einstein and general relativity, for one high-profile instance.

Einstein went into great detail about empirical predictions. Since ID proponents avoid doing so, your analogy fails.
Quote
In other words, when you say "they have a scientific hypothesis",

That's preposterous. I never wrote the words that you put between quotation marks. Deal with what I actually wrote and park your ego, OK?
Quote
...the conclusion that immediately follows, whether you are cognizant of it or not, is that "they are doing science".

Since I am cognizant of the fact that I never wrote the words that you falsely attributed to me, your conclusion doesn't follow at all.
Quote
That they do it badly is not a qualitative distinction.

They don't do it at all. I am proposing that we do it for them for the benefit of the public.
 
Quote
And nothing you have proposed gets to a qualitative distinction that would say that the IDC advocates are not doing science once you cede to them the stipulation that they have provided a scientific hypothesis.

They have provided nothing but assertions. I have never ceded that they have provided a scientific hypothesis, and all your fake quotes won't help except in your own mind. I am proposing that we help the public to view ID assertions as hypotheses--then the fact that they reject science becomes more obvious.

I had hoped to stimulate some discussion of this proposal, not an endless series of straw men from someone who seems to be unwilling to face up to the fact that science education in the US has failed for the vast majority of citizens.

Daniel Smith is a perfect example of that; if we view his ID assertion as a hypothesis, we more easily see that he is falsely claiming eminently testable, utterly empirical predictions (i.e., each enzyme only catalyzes one reaction) as fact because he lacks sufficient faith to test them against reality.

Crikey.

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,16:21   

Quote (dnmlthr @ Mar. 02 2009,00:12)
Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2009,21:00)
Quote
If irreducible complexity, aka "We don't know, therefore I know", isn't a poster child for an argument from ignorance I don't know what is.

That's not what IC is. IC is simply a definition that does a fine rhetorical job of obscuring Behe's actual hypothesis--that structures that meet the ever-changing definition of IC must have been designed because they could not have evolved. That hypothesis makes predictions (the hypothesis, not the people pushing it).

The IC argument relies on our ignorance, as it falls back on a default explanation as soon as a phenomena is unexplained by other means. How is that supposed to be tested?

Viewing it as an "argument" plays into their hands. If you view it as a hypothesis, it predicts that functional structures composed of subsets of components won't exist.

They do, so the hypothesis--which is not the same thing as the definition--has been falsified in every case in which Behe has applied it.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,17:11   

Wow.  After reading the exchanges between JAM and Wesley I am convinced that it'll make some at the Disco nervous if it was going on at one of "their sites".  There's something you'll see completely blotted out on a Creationist/ID blog, two proponents on the "same side" arguing openly.

If anything confuses them more, I am at a loss to say what that would be.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,17:22   

Yeah, if they keep that up, sooner or later one of them will kick over one of the support poles to our big tent, and then where will we be? :p

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,17:52   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 02 2009,17:22)
Yeah, if they keep that up, sooner or later one of them will kick over one of the support poles to our big tent, and then where will we be? :p

SHHHH!  You're giving out our (socialist) state secrets! :O

That ID gets no respect is just due to "prejudice in science circles" truly shows their ignorance.  Obviously they've never heard nor seen the exchanges between PE supporters and detractors.

I bet that Daniel is thinking he's "winning" by making two "evilutionists" argue.  Earth to Daniel, that's how science is done.  Not only does one worry about the data but the exact meaning of each word in context.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,18:09   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 01 2009,18:10)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,17:23)
Are you conceding then that no current biological system can be explained by the "sheer accumulation of micro-mutations"?

By your 'snippage' and lack of response to that question, I'm thinking you already know you've lost that argument.

I'm saying that half your argument is based on personal experiences and theological longings (you freely admit that above), the rest on obsolete science (also established above vis your heros Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, etc.) buttressed by idiosyncratic, unsupported speculations about future findings (which you report ad nauseam above). If that causes you to swell with a sense of victory, I'd wager you also own a stack of sticky magazines.

I'll take that as a "Yes".
   
Quote
If you are unable to comprehend Mayr's point vis speciation, just say so and we'll help you with that.

If you're interested in Mayr, you might want to read this:
The history of essentialism vs. Ernst Mayr’s ‘‘Essentialism Story’’: A case study of German idealistic morphology


--------------
"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: Mar. 02 2009,18:13   

Quote (BWE @ Mar. 01 2009,21:09)
Daniel, may I ask you a question? Why would you choose xianity over the great spirit?

Jesus.

--------------
"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: Mar. 02 2009,18:32   

Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2009,21:35)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,16:44)

To use my analogy, the assembly line was altered to add human DNA to the gene coding for the B-galactosidase enzyme.  While it is merely an "add on", the production of an insulin-carrying enzyme is a biosynthetic process not native to E. coli.

"Biosynthetic processes" are things like transcription, replication, and translation, not individual genes.

What is being transcribed, translated and replicated JAM?  Did you think I meant that a different method of protein synthesis must be invented in order to produce new enzymes?  That's just silly.
     
Quote
Besides, my example involved none of those things.

This was a response to Wesley.  I wasn't talking about your example.
       
Quote
     
Quote
They also had to use a weakened mutant strain of E. coli that would not degrade the insulin once it was produced.

You're lying and conflating.

They chose a weakened strain because they don't want it to be able to compete with the E. coli in our guts. They didn't have to.

In our guts?  This insulin production doesn't take place "in our guts", so why would they be worried about that?    
Quote
They chose a strain defective in degradation because they wanted higher yields. Those were two separate things, and they didn't have to do either one.
     
From the website Wesley cited:  
Quote
E. coli produces enzymes that rapidly degrade foreign proteins such as insulin. By using mutant strains that lack these enzymes, the problem is avoided.


You're right - technically they didn't have to use mutant bacteria, they only used it to produce insulin that the bacteria wouldn't turn around and eat!

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,18:33   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 03 2009,00:13)
Quote (BWE @ Mar. 01 2009,21:09)
Daniel, may I ask you a question? Why would you choose xianity over the great spirit?

Jesus.

Yes, I felt the same way about that question, but there's no need to blaspheme, just answer the question.

Here all week. Try fish. Tip waitress.

Hint 1) The next question will be "on what basis?"

Hint 2) "Because my personal experience leads me to do so" ain't gonna cut it. The plural of anecdote is not data.

Just thought I'd help.

Now are you going to provide any evidence that you are not a child molester or are you, by your silence, accepting that my contention that it is impossible for you to prove you are not a child molester is equally valid to any claim you can make re: your child molesting status?

We can all play your games Denial, maybe you'll understand one day why we don't. My breath: I won't be holding it.

Louis

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,18:34   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,18:13)
Quote (BWE @ Mar. 01 2009,21:09)
Daniel, may I ask you a question? Why would you choose xianity over the great spirit?
Jesus.

Was that a swear word?  Or are you saying that Jesus is more real to you than the Great Spirit.  Personally, I think there's as much evidence for Cthulhu.

What about some of the stories of other "gods born of mortal women" and "gods that died and rose from the dead"?

Osiris comes to mind.

Mitra is another

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,18:34   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,19:13)
Quote (BWE @ Mar. 01 2009,21:09)
Daniel, may I ask you a question? Why would you choose xianity over the great spirit?

Jesus.

Is that: Jesus! as an expletive?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,18:37   

LOL Great minds think alike.....but I got there first.

HEY!!! No throwing fruit!

I must be a genius, I'm unappreciated in my own time. You know how Einstein's school results were bad, well mine were EVEN WORSE! Etc.

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,18:40   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 03 2009,00:09)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 01 2009,18:10)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,17:23)
Are you conceding then that no current biological system can be explained by the "sheer accumulation of micro-mutations"?

By your 'snippage' and lack of response to that question, I'm thinking you already know you've lost that argument.

I'm saying that half your argument is based on personal experiences and theological longings (you freely admit that above), the rest on obsolete science (also established above vis your heros Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, etc.) buttressed by idiosyncratic, unsupported speculations about future findings (which you report ad nauseam above). If that causes you to swell with a sense of victory, I'd wager you also own a stack of sticky magazines.

I'll take that as a "Yes".

[SNIP]

Why on earth would you do that?

You've been shown a couple of systems and simply moved the goalposts. Since you are not arguing honestly or even with basic coherence, you repeatedly refuse to even attempt to correct your basic misunderstandings (despite the fact that these have been pointed out to you nicely and frequently), and since you endlessly repeat the same worn out, well refuted tired old crapola, what other response do you expect other than ridicule?

Walter Mitty had nothing on you, Denial.

Louis

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,19:10   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,19:09)
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 01 2009,18:10)
             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,17:23)
Are you conceding then that no current biological system can be explained by the "sheer accumulation of micro-mutations"?

By your 'snippage' and lack of response to that question, I'm thinking you already know you've lost that argument.

I'm saying that half your argument is based on personal experiences and theological longings (you freely admit that above), the rest on obsolete science (also established above vis your heros Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, etc.) buttressed by idiosyncratic, unsupported speculations about future findings (which you report ad nauseam above). If that causes you to swell with a sense of victory, I'd wager you also own a stack of sticky magazines.

I'll take that as a "Yes".

Mayr's insight that species are are best conceptualized as interbreeding (or potentially interbreeding) populations (the biological species concept), and that speciation is initiated by geographic and eventually reproductive isolation (among other mechanisms), refuted the claim that saltation is required for speciation, and restored selection acting upon mutation as a sufficient mechanism (along with some others that have nothing to do with the hopeful monster that is your position on this question) when understood in conjunction with these population and geographic factors.

That was 60 years ago. It seems to be news to you.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,19:23   

Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2009,21:52)
             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,17:00)
How about laying out an an amino acid synthesis pathway using only ribozymes then?

Why? I'm not hypothesizing that the pathways evolved that way.

Here's my entire quote (in context) and your response:            
Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2009,14:38)
             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,16:17)
I'm saying that no one can explain the specific processes that brought about the E. coli amino acid synthesis pathway.  Specifically considering the fact that enzymes are constructed from amino acids.  It's a classic chicken/egg scenario.

Not even close, since RNAs can be catalytic.

So what was that then JAM?  A handwave?
           
Quote
How about reading a single paper on the alleged specificity you claimed for these existing enzymes? How about citing the book in which you claimed to have read this claim?

I predict that you'll do neither because you lack faith.
 
             
Quote
I said (and you snipped) the fact that that was a general statement.  That means it is not an absolute statement - though you insist on treating it as such.  (Stawman #4)

It's false as an absolute statement.
It's false as a general statement.
It's even false as a specific statement for any of the enzymes to which you refer.

Is that clear enough? You're lying no matter how far you move the goalposts.
             
Quote
How so?

Because their designs aren't unique, obviously.

             
Quote
My argument states that each reaction in the E. coli amino acid synthesis pathway requires a specific, unique (as in - no other enzyme will do) enzyme.

             
Quote
"they don't" what?
 
The reactions don't require specific, unique enzymes. You can't even be bothered to look at whether they are specific before you claim that your assumption is fact.

That's bearing false witness.
 
             
Quote
I never claimed my argument was "science" JAM.  On the contrary, it predicts a failure for naturalistic science.

How confident are you in that prediction, and in your assumptions? I mean, you stated them as fact, so you must be absolutely sure they are factual, correct?

How much is your house worth? Your car?
             
Quote
My argument is based on theology and observation JAM.

Your theology is characterized by lack of faith and refusal to observe reality.
             
Quote
If you want to treat it as science, then you can falsify it by coming up with an evolutionary pathway leading up to the present E. coli aminosynthetic pathway.

No, I can falsify your whole shebang simply by showing that any one of the enzymes you named is selective, not specific, for substrates.
             
Quote
How so?

Because changing the selectivity of an enzyme is trivial. You lie and claim the opposite.

OK JAM, I'm interested in enzyme selectivity vs. specificity.  The book where I read that enzymes are specific is Biochemistry, Fourth Edition, by Geoffrey L. Zubay.  On page 16, the text states:              
Quote
Enzymes are structurally complex, highly specific catalysts; each enzyme usually catalyzes only one type of reaction.

Now, you'll notice that the author doesn't state that an enzyme cannot be modified to do other things.  I also never said that, nor does my argument imply it.  

I said:          
Quote
The mild conditions and aqueous solution within real cells are not conducive to rapid chemical reactions like those required in the Miller/Urey experiments, therefore a catalyst of some type is needed. Luckily enzymes fit the bill. Enzymes are highly specific, structurally complex molecules that act as catalysts for biochemical reactions within living cells. Each enzyme generally catalyzes only one type of reaction (remember that - it's important).

In E. coli, (one of the simplest unicellular lifeforms on the planet), the amino acids aspartic acid, asparagine, lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine are synthesized from the compound oxaloacetate via a series of biochemical steps - each of which requires its own unique enzyme, (remember?).  link

You'll notice that I used pretty much the exact same wording as the textbook.  

To be honest, I'm not really sure exactly what you're critiquing here JAM.  If you're saying that an enzyme is "selective", (i.e.; it will bind to and react with any substrate that it is chemically and physically able to), I have no problem with that.  In fact I know it to be true.  What I don't see is how that changes anything re: my argument.  A biochemical pathway must still proceed stepwise through from start to finish.  Each step must be catalyzed, therefore each step requires an enzyme that will A) fit, B) catalyze the correct product(s), C) be in the vicinity, D) in adequate supply, and (if at a point in the stream where it's necessary) E) be susceptible to regulation so that 1) the substrate is not all used up, 2) the product does not flood the cell and 3) the pathway continues to produce the end products and intermediaries in such a way that it does not harm the organism.  If there are other enzymes that can do all of the above, fine.  The challenge is to show how the entire biochemical pathway evolved.  It's not just about enzymes JAM, it's about the pathway as a whole.

--------------
"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: Mar. 02 2009,19:35   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 02 2009,16:34)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,18:13)
   
Quote (BWE @ Mar. 01 2009,21:09)
Daniel, may I ask you a question? Why would you choose xianity over the great spirit?
Jesus.

Was that a swear word?  Or are you saying that Jesus is more real to you than the Great Spirit.  Personally, I think there's as much evidence for Cthulhu.

What about some of the stories of other "gods born of mortal women" and "gods that died and rose from the dead"?

Osiris comes to mind.

Mitra is another

Christianity is about the God/man Jesus and the redemption of man via the sacrificial love of God.  And yes, Jesus is real to me.  That's why I choose Christianity over the great spirit.

P.S. - it's not about evidence or stories.  I've experienced the reality of Christ - that's enough for me.

--------------
"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: Mar. 02 2009,19:37   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 02 2009,17:10)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,19:09)
       
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 01 2009,18:10)
                 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,17:23)
Are you conceding then that no current biological system can be explained by the "sheer accumulation of micro-mutations"?

By your 'snippage' and lack of response to that question, I'm thinking you already know you've lost that argument.

I'm saying that half your argument is based on personal experiences and theological longings (you freely admit that above), the rest on obsolete science (also established above vis your heros Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, etc.) buttressed by idiosyncratic, unsupported speculations about future findings (which you report ad nauseam above). If that causes you to swell with a sense of victory, I'd wager you also own a stack of sticky magazines.

I'll take that as a "Yes".

Mayr's insight that species are are best conceptualized as interbreeding (or potentially interbreeding) populations (the biological species concept), and that speciation is initiated by geographic and eventually reproductive isolation (among other mechanisms), refuted the claim that saltation is required for speciation, and restored selection acting upon mutation as a sufficient mechanism (along with some others that have nothing to do with the hopeful monster that is your position on this question) when understood in conjunction with these population and geographic factors.

That was 60 years ago. It seems to be news to you.

It doesn't "refute" anything if it cannot be demonstrated Bill.  (Is that "news" to you?)

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

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,19:41   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,20:35)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 02 2009,16:34)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,18:13)
   
Quote (BWE @ Mar. 01 2009,21:09)
Daniel, may I ask you a question? Why would you choose xianity over the great spirit?
Jesus.

Was that a swear word?  Or are you saying that Jesus is more real to you than the Great Spirit.  Personally, I think there's as much evidence for Cthulhu.

What about some of the stories of other "gods born of mortal women" and "gods that died and rose from the dead"?

Osiris comes to mind.

Mitra is another

Christianity is about the God/man Jesus and the redemption of man via the sacrificial love of God.  And yes, Jesus is real to me.  That's why I choose Christianity over the great spirit.

P.S. - it's not about evidence or stories.  I've experienced the reality of Christ - that's enough for me.

How big is god's penis?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,19:45   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,19:35)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 02 2009,16:34)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,18:13)
Quote (BWE @ Mar. 01 2009,21:09)
Daniel, may I ask you a question? Why would you choose xianity over the great spirit?
Jesus.
Was that a swear word?  Or are you saying that Jesus is more real to you than the Great Spirit.  Personally, I think there's as much evidence for Cthulhu.

What about some of the stories of other "gods born of mortal women" and "gods that died and rose from the dead"?

Osiris comes to mind.

Mitra is another
Christianity is about the God/man Jesus and the redemption of man via the sacrificial love of God.  And yes, Jesus is real to me.  That's why I choose Christianity over the great spirit.

P.S. - it's not about evidence or stories.  I've experienced the reality of Christ - that's enough for me.

Interesting.


So people can speak with their god?  Do you?  Please tell me about "your experience".  Was it as good for him as it seems to have been for you?

The thing that has always stuck in my paw about Xianity is that this all powerful, omnipotent, omnipresent god, leaves two innocents (how else do you describe two people with no knowledge) alone knowing full well what they'd do and it's their fault?  If I left two toddlers in a room with a loaded gun on a table they could reach, tell them not to touch it and one blows the others head off, whose fault is it?  Why isn't your god just as culpable as my stupidity?

If anything this god of yours should be on its knees praying for our forgiveness if as many stated before that there was no death before man sinned.  Seems this god is either not so powerful or is in fact incapable of doing anything right.

One more thing, do you have anything from, I don't know, within 20 years from "secular evolutionists" that are far more on the cutting edge of what scientists have been doing or like so much from the ID or Creation side, nothing but snippets and retelling of old stories and out of text quotes to prop up your position.

I'm not an expert on Biology but even I can tell you have nothing.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,19:47   

Quote (khan @ Mar. 02 2009,19:41)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,20:35)
(snip)
Christianity is about the God/man Jesus and the redemption of man via the sacrificial love of God.  And yes, Jesus is real to me.  That's why I choose Christianity over the great spirit.

P.S. - it's not about evidence or stories.  I've experienced the reality of Christ - that's enough for me.[/quote]How big is god's penis?

Woah,


Looking for a date there girl?

;)

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,20:04   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 02 2009,20:47)
Quote (khan @ Mar. 02 2009,19:41)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,20:35)
(snip)
Christianity is about the God/man Jesus and the redemption of man via the sacrificial love of God.  And yes, Jesus is real to me.  That's why I choose Christianity over the great spirit.

P.S. - it's not about evidence or stories.  I've experienced the reality of Christ - that's enough for me.
How big is god's penis?[/quote]
Woah,


Looking for a date there girl?

;)

If he's interested, I'm sure he knows how to get in touch.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,20:42   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,19:23)
Now, you'll notice that the author doesn't state that an enzyme cannot be modified to do other things.  I also never said that, nor does my argument imply it.

Daniel, if you bothered to read those papers I linked to earlier, you would understand that you don't need to "modify" enzymes. Many of them can "do other things" anyway.

Your capacity to miss the point remains astonishing. Nearly as astonishing as your ignorance about biochemistry.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,21:14   

JAM:

Quote

Put another way, the point I'm trying to make is that ID can be viewed as a scientific hypothesis, and that our public efforts might be better spent by educating the public about the scientific method and using ID as an explicit example of a false hypothesis. ID proponents are simply lying and asserting that the predictions are true instead of testing them empirically.


I'm working from those words of yours. If you need to significantly change what is meant by them, then I think the proofreader performed good service.

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

    
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,21:17   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,20:37)
It doesn't "refute" anything if it cannot be demonstrated Bill.  (Is that "news" to you?)

Conversely, do you agree that if speciation in the mode argued by Mayr (allopatric speciation originating in the geographic isolation of populations, culminating in reproductive isolation and therefore speciation) has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community, your argument has been refuted?

Yes or no.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,22:01   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,18:23)
   
Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2009,21:52)
                   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,17:00)
How about laying out an an amino acid synthesis pathway using only ribozymes then?

Why? I'm not hypothesizing that the pathways evolved that way.

Here's my entire quote (in context) and your response:                  
Quote (JAM @ Mar. 01 2009,14:38)
                   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,16:17)
I'm saying that no one can explain the specific processes that brought about the E. coli amino acid synthesis pathway.  Specifically considering the fact that enzymes are constructed from amino acids.  It's a classic chicken/egg scenario.

Not even close, since RNAs can be catalytic.

So what was that then JAM?  A handwave?
Nope. I'm pointing out that no intelligent person is claiming that all the pathways evolved at once.  
Quote

                 
Quote
How about reading a single paper on the alleged specificity you claimed for these existing enzymes? How about citing the book in which you claimed to have read this claim?

I predict that you'll do neither because you lack faith.
 
Quote
I said (and you snipped) the fact that that was a general statement.  That means it is not an absolute statement - though you insist on treating it as such.  (Stawman #4)

It's false as an absolute statement.
It's false as a general statement.
It's even false as a specific statement for any of the enzymes to which you refer.

Is that clear enough? You're lying no matter how far you move the goalposts.
                   
Quote
How so?

Because their designs aren't unique, obviously.

                   
Quote
My argument states that each reaction in the E. coli amino acid synthesis pathway requires a specific, unique (as in - no other enzyme will do) enzyme.

                   
Quote
"they don't" what?
 
The reactions don't require specific, unique enzymes. You can't even be bothered to look at whether they are specific before you claim that your assumption is fact.

That's bearing false witness.
 
                   
Quote
I never claimed my argument was "science" JAM.  On the contrary, it predicts a failure for naturalistic science.

How confident are you in that prediction, and in your assumptions? I mean, you stated them as fact, so you must be absolutely sure they are factual, correct?

How much is your house worth? Your car?
                   
Quote
My argument is based on theology and observation JAM.

Your theology is characterized by lack of faith and refusal to observe reality.
                   
Quote
If you want to treat it as science, then you can falsify it by coming up with an evolutionary pathway leading up to the present E. coli aminosynthetic pathway.

No, I can falsify your whole shebang simply by showing that any one of the enzymes you named is selective, not specific, for substrates.
                   
Quote
How so?

Because changing the selectivity of an enzyme is trivial. You lie and claim the opposite.

OK JAM, I'm interested in enzyme selectivity vs. specificity.

I don't think so.  
Quote
 The book where I read that enzymes are specific is Biochemistry, Fourth Edition, by Geoffrey L. Zubay.  On page 16, the text states:                    
Quote
Enzymes are structurally complex, highly specific catalysts; each enzyme usually catalyzes only one type of reaction.

"One type of reaction" is a long way from ONLY a single reaction, don't you think?
 
Quote
Now, you'll notice that the author doesn't state that an enzyme cannot be modified to do other things.  I also never said that, nor does my argument imply it.

The author doesn't say that a single enzyme catalyzes multiple different reactions, but it's the truth. That fact is what makes it easy for me or evolution to change the selectivity of an enzyme. The author doesn't support your claims, either. 
 
Quote
I said:      
Quote
The mild conditions and aqueous solution within real cells are not conducive to rapid chemical reactions like those required in the Miller/Urey experiments, therefore a catalyst of some type is needed. Luckily enzymes fit the bill. Enzymes are highly specific, structurally complex molecules that act as catalysts for biochemical reactions within living cells. Each enzyme generally catalyzes only one type of reaction (remember that - it's important).

In E. coli, (one of the simplest unicellular lifeforms on the planet), the amino acids aspartic acid, asparagine, lysine, threonine, isoleucine, and methionine are synthesized from the compound oxaloacetate via a series of biochemical steps - each of which requires its own unique enzyme, (remember?).

What you're missing is that the author of your textbook doesn't say anything remotely resembling your claim that each requires its own unique enzyme. That's your lie.
 
Quote
You'll notice that I used pretty much the exact same wording as the textbook.

I don't! Precisely where would I find, "each of which requires its own unique enzyme" in the textbook, Dan? It's definitely false whether it's in the textbook or not.
 
Quote
To be honest, I'm not really sure exactly what you're critiquing here JAM.

Your lack of honesty. Is E. coli really "one of the simplest unicellular lifeforms on the planet," anyway? Is it simpler than your average mycoplasma, for instance?
 
Quote
If you're saying that an enzyme is "selective", (i.e.; it will bind to and react with any substrate that it is chemically and physically able to), I have no problem with that.

That's not even close to what "selectivity" means. Besides, enzymes don't react with substrates. If you don't even understand the most elementary definition of catalysis, you're hopeless.
 
Quote
In fact I know it to be true.  What I don't see is how that changes anything re: my argument.  A biochemical pathway must still proceed stepwise through from start to finish.

Really? Why?
 
Quote
Each step must be catalyzed, therefore each step requires an enzyme that will A) fit, B) catalyze the correct product(s), C) be in the vicinity, D) in adequate supply, and (if at a point in the stream where it's necessary) E) be susceptible to regulation so that 1) the substrate is not all used up, 2) the product does not flood the cell and 3) the pathway continues to produce the end products and intermediaries in such a way that it does not harm the organism.

No. Pretty much everything you wrote there is not required. Besides, I'm concentrating on your Big Fat Lie, "each of which requires its own unique enzyme." Why don't we deal with one falsehood at a time?
 
Quote
If there are other enzymes that can do all of the above, fine.  The challenge is to show how the entire biochemical pathway evolved.
No, first your challenge is to understand where the goalposts should be.
 
Quote
 It's not just about enzymes JAM, it's about the pathway as a whole.

It's about your claim, "each of which requires its own unique enzyme."

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,22:07   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 02 2009,20:14)
JAM:

Quote

Put another way, the point I'm trying to make is that ID can be viewed as a scientific hypothesis, and that our public efforts might be better spent by educating the public about the scientific method and using ID as an explicit example of a false hypothesis. ID proponents are simply lying and asserting that the predictions are true instead of testing them empirically.


I'm working from those words of yours. If you need to significantly change what is meant by them, then I think the proofreader performed good service.

No, you weren't working from those words.

You fabricated four things I didn't write, put them inside quotation marks, and attributed them to me, apparently because you can't deal rationally with someone suggesting improvements that might improve the sorry state of science education.

Debating these turds on a stage just makes things worse, but you're apparently proud of participating in that.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 02 2009,23:07   

Quote (khan @ Mar. 03 2009,04:04)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 02 2009,20:47)
Quote (khan @ Mar. 02 2009,19:41)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,20:35)
(snip)
Christianity is about the God/man Jesus and the redemption of man via the sacrificial love of God.  And yes, Jesus is real to me.  That's why I choose Christianity over the great spirit.

P.S. - it's not about evidence or stories.  I've experienced the reality of Christ - that's enough for me.
How big is god's penis?

Woah,


Looking for a date there girl?

;)[/quote]
If he's interested, I'm sure he knows how to get in touch.

<blush>...sorry not available at the moment one goddess at a time .... except on the dark side of the planet.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,01:09   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 02 2009,21:17)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,20:37)
It doesn't "refute" anything if it cannot be demonstrated Bill.  (Is that "news" to you?)

Conversely, do you agree that if speciation in the mode argued by Mayr (allopatric speciation originating in the geographic isolation of populations, culminating in reproductive isolation and therefore speciation) has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community, your argument has been refuted?

Yes or no.

C'mon Bill he won't even pony up what he means by 'species'.  All his posturing about Schindewolf should have given him a great straw man concept to knock down, namely Simpson.  

it's amazing that he wouldn't attack that because the justification of simpson's species concepts destroys the point of his goalpost moving w.r.t to the polyploid paper.  there are problems with ESC but apparently our friend Cuntsworth has failed to see the hammer for the nail.

you know he will demand a complete genealogy for your allopatric populations in order to demonstrate that there were no think-poofs involved.  what a fucking clown

piss on him

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,02:24   

Quote
- it's not about evidence or stories.  I've experienced the reality of Christ - that's enough for me.

That's enough - for what? Evidence that the symbol of Christ really is a powerful symbol that one may realize, like St. Paul obviously must have experienced, he is quite clear when referring to "Christ in me" - or evidence for the inerrancy of the Bible?

But, what if conclusive proof was found, showing that the Jesus story is a fabrication, modeled after the many accounts of dying-and-resurrecting godmen, accounts that  we know were created as symbols, used as symbols, worshiped as symbols and never believed to be accounts of historical events - until literalism raised its ugly head ~2000 years ago?

Would that lessen the value, the effect or whatever of St. Paul's experience - or yours, or the experience of the millions of people who have had and still may have the same experience?

Prove me wrong, prove that if if it could be shown that the Jesus story is 'only' a myth, then your experience would suddenly be erased?

The point is: "Salvation" does not depend on the historicity of Jesus!

I believe theology might be better for you than the science of which you obviously have a lot of study - with a will and an intent to really understand - to do before you know what you are talking about.

Theology has the obvious advantage for people like you that every man's opinion is as good as the next man's - theology is not science, therefore you can make it into what you want it to be. That's that what you want with science, isn't it?

When will you realize that you are barking up the wrong tree here?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,02:32   

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 03 2009,08:24)
[SNIP good stuff]

When will you realize that you are barking up the wrong tree here?

{Raises hand}

Oooh oooohh I know, I know, pick me Miss, pick me, Miss, Miss, oooh ooh I know I know!

Never, Miss.

Although I like to think that a more rational biblical understanding with literalists will help them come to a more rational...well...everything.

Louis

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,04:41   

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 03 2009,10:24)
Quote
- it's not about evidence or stories.  I've experienced the reality of Christ - that's enough for me.

That's enough - for what? Evidence that the symbol of Christ really is a powerful symbol that one may realize, like St. Paul obviously must have experienced, he is quite clear when referring to "Christ in me" - or evidence for the inerrancy of the Bible?

But, what if conclusive proof was found, showing that the Jesus story is a fabrication, modeled after the many accounts of dying-and-resurrecting godmen, accounts that  we know were created as symbols, used as symbols, worshiped as symbols and never believed to be accounts of historical events - until literalism raised its ugly head ~2000 years ago?

Would that lessen the value, the effect or whatever of St. Paul's experience - or yours, or the experience of the millions of people who have had and still may have the same experience?

Prove me wrong, prove that if if it could be shown that the Jesus story is 'only' a myth, then your experience would suddenly be erased?

The point is: "Salvation" does not depend on the historicity of Jesus!

I believe theology might be better for you than the science of which you obviously have a lot of study - with a will and an intent to really understand - to do before you know what you are talking about.

Theology has the obvious advantage for people like you that every man's opinion is as good as the next man's - theology is not science, therefore you can make it into what you want it to be. That's that what you want with science, isn't it?

When will you realize that you are barking up the wrong tree here?

I don't think he knows what the word reality actually means or for that matter Christ.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,05:11   

Christ who I'm sure if he was around today wouldn't have a great deal of time for a gutless sniveling groveler like Daniel....."ooooh ooooh oooh how would you like us to pray oh lord"

Like any true Po Mo for him there is no such thing as a fact and if one is presented to him he simply moves the goal posts.

He is suffering in his own private objectivist or hyperrationalistic technocratic dystopia where anything printed on paper must be treated as literally Gospel truth (if he so chooses).

He idolizes the bible for its words creating a dualism in his own mind which could be mistaken for mild schizophrenia.

If it he was to go around claiming he was Napoleon instead of some replacement for Darwin and started neglecting his bible classes in the old days he could be committed.

The fact is religion's primary mode of regeneration is through creating a magical social reality by constant reinforcing of well know propaganda techniques, "If you are going to tell a lie make sure its a big one".

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,07:46   

So Daniel, you want "exact pathways" that were taken by bio chemical processes, right?

You do know that unless we actually get precursor biological specimens to study we may never truly know.  Of yes, as others have shown you, we can get close and have a 99% certainty that the enzymes, catalysts and what not but we will never have 100% proof.

And that's what you want.  You are 100% sure that your version of Jesus and Heaven awaits you if and only if you are 100% true to this ideal that you have in your mind.  Fortunately for you as this ideal is only all in your head, you'll be able to rationalize your judging, condemnation and general hatred you have towards people you don't like or don't agree with you (usually the same group which is about 99% of the rest of humanity) and still feel "saved", "special" and "forgiven".

Your insistence on the path of A to B, then from B to C and so on is truly misguided.  From my understanding of biology, systems are co-opted if it is found that it works better in another function than what it originally "evolved" to do.

If what remember reading is true, there are few clean breaks from one "system" to another.  That is not to say that it can't happen.  Evolution can come quickly or it can take its time.  All that matters for evolution is that the creature with the "different" (I dare not say mutated) genes procreate and its offspring have an advantage over the competition.

That leads to the most over-blown and misused "Darwinian term", "Survival of the Fittest".  It is actually "Survival of the most able to survive and procreate".  If that means cowering away and being able to hid in a big pile of dung, so be it.  Evolution is not just the strong killing the weak.  It is so much more.

Here's something for you to think about.  You know how tidy Math is, right?  That's what you'd like to see.  Plug in a problem and the answer spits out.  Ever notice that when you take it to a more complex model, multiple and interdependent variables, it becomes very complex, almost impossible?

Welcome to biology.  It has many variables and very few can be controlled.  That is why pinning down biology is very difficult.  Change one thing and the effects can be wide spread or even non-existent.

Here's something for you to do, I'd like you to plot out the course for a comet, your choice on it's mass, inclination to the ecliptic, even how where it comes in from the Oort cloud as long as its original trajectory would have taken it within 50m KM of the Sun.

Come on now, you should be able to do that as it is well known and you have all of these "laws" you can invoke.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,07:50   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:46)
(snip)

Come on now, you should be able to do that as it is well known and you have all of these "laws" you can invoke.

As I don't have the edit function yet, that should be the EXACT Path, with 100% accuracy.

After all, isn't that what you are asking from others?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,07:56   

yes Cudsworth and please supply the exact sequence of events that produced your haploid Jesus.

child molestor

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,09:45   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:50)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:46)
(snip)

Come on now, you should be able to do that as it is well known and you have all of these "laws" you can invoke.

As I don't have the edit function yet, that should be the EXACT Path, with 100% accuracy.

After all, isn't that what you are asking from others?

I keep waiting for some YEC historian to claim "if science can't tell us precisely where Lewis and Clark were every second of every day during their 1804 historic expedition across America, then Lewis and Clarke never existed!"


:D  :D  :D

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,09:53   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 03 2009,13:56)
yes Cudsworth and please supply the exact sequence of events that produced your haploid Jesus.

child molestor

Now now, that's not fair. No one can claim that Denial is a child molester, only that, since I (and perhaps others) claim that it is impossible for him to demonstrate that he is not a child molester, any claim he makes regarding not being a child molester is false. Theology and having seen no child molesters work in my life tells me this. Therefore the claim that it is impossible for Denial to demonstrate he is not a child molester is science.

;-)

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,09:56   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 03 2009,15:45)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:50)
 
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:46)
(snip)

Come on now, you should be able to do that as it is well known and you have all of these "laws" you can invoke.

As I don't have the edit function yet, that should be the EXACT Path, with 100% accuracy.

After all, isn't that what you are asking from others?

I keep waiting for some YEC historian to claim "if science can't tell us precisely where Lewis and Clark were every second of every day during their 1804 historic expedition across America, then Lewis and Clarke never existed!"


:D  :D  :D

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how I got to and from the pub by providing details of every step along the way. Because otherwise it's impossible that I've ever been in a pub, despite the fact that I am currently in a gutter wearing a traffic cone and a pair of fake breasts.

Louis

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,10:09   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 03 2009,09:56)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 03 2009,15:45)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:50)
 
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:46)
(snip)

Come on now, you should be able to do that as it is well known and you have all of these "laws" you can invoke.
As I don't have the edit function yet, that should be the EXACT Path, with 100% accuracy.

After all, isn't that what you are asking from others?
I keep waiting for some YEC historian to claim "if science can't tell us precisely where Lewis and Clark were every second of every day during their 1804 historic expedition across America, then Lewis and Clarke never existed!"


:D  :D  :D
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how I got to and from the pub by providing details of every step along the way. Because otherwise it's impossible that I've ever been in a pub, despite the fact that I am currently in a gutter wearing a traffic cone and a pair of fake breasts.

Louis

Wouldn't it also be science to say that it is impossible for Daniel to not show that his beloved Jebus didn't also find himself in a gutter, with dung on his head, fake breasts and a sore ass coming (or maybe he already came) from a bar?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
JLT



Posts: 740
Joined: Jan. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,11:51   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 03 2009,15:56)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 03 2009,15:45)
 
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:50)
   
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:46)
(snip)

Come on now, you should be able to do that as it is well known and you have all of these "laws" you can invoke.

As I don't have the edit function yet, that should be the EXACT Path, with 100% accuracy.

After all, isn't that what you are asking from others?

I keep waiting for some YEC historian to claim "if science can't tell us precisely where Lewis and Clark were every second of every day during their 1804 historic expedition across America, then Lewis and Clarke never existed!"


:D  :D  :D

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how I got to and from the pub by providing details of every step along the way. Because otherwise it's impossible that I've ever been in a pub, despite the fact that I am currently in a gutter wearing a traffic cone and a pair of fake breasts.

Louis

The facts:
- pictures of Louis without traffic cone and fake breasts in the pub
- Louis in the gutter with traffic cone and fake breasts*

ID explaination:
God The designer (or aliens) must have abducted Louis and provided him with a traffic cone and fake breasts.



* Interesting. Why fake breasts?**

** On second thought: Don't answer that.

--------------
"Random mutations, if they are truly random, will affect, and potentially damage, any aspect of the organism, [...]
Thus, a realistic [computer] simulation [of evolution] would allow the program, OS, and hardware to be affected in a random fashion." GilDodgen, Frilly shirt owner

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,12:39   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 03 2009,08:56)
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how I got to and from the pub by providing details of every step along the way. Because otherwise it's impossible that I've ever been in a pub, despite the fact that I am currently in a gutter wearing a traffic cone and a pair of fake breasts.

Louis

I was about to ask where you plugged in your computer to type that, but i guess it's wireless? Still, typing while lying in a gutter doesn't sound very comfortable.
:p

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,13:51   

Quote (JLT @ Mar. 03 2009,17:51)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 03 2009,15:56)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 03 2009,15:45)
   
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:50)
     
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:46)
(snip)

Come on now, you should be able to do that as it is well known and you have all of these "laws" you can invoke.

As I don't have the edit function yet, that should be the EXACT Path, with 100% accuracy.

After all, isn't that what you are asking from others?

I keep waiting for some YEC historian to claim "if science can't tell us precisely where Lewis and Clark were every second of every day during their 1804 historic expedition across America, then Lewis and Clarke never existed!"


:D  :D  :D

I'm still waiting for someone to explain how I got to and from the pub by providing details of every step along the way. Because otherwise it's impossible that I've ever been in a pub, despite the fact that I am currently in a gutter wearing a traffic cone and a pair of fake breasts.

Louis

The facts:
- pictures of Louis without traffic cone and fake breasts in the pub
- Louis in the gutter with traffic cone and fake breasts*

ID explaination:
God The designer (or aliens) must have abducted Louis and provided him with a traffic cone and fake breasts.



* Interesting. Why fake breasts?**

** On second thought: Don't answer that.

The answer to the question is very simple: Why not?

An illustrative example, which conveniently also contains an example of a creationist-style explanation.

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,13:54   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 03 2009,18:39)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 03 2009,08:56)
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how I got to and from the pub by providing details of every step along the way. Because otherwise it's impossible that I've ever been in a pub, despite the fact that I am currently in a gutter wearing a traffic cone and a pair of fake breasts.

Louis

I was about to ask where you plugged in your computer to type that, but i guess it's wireless? Still, typing while lying in a gutter doesn't sound very comfortable.
:p

The joys of a Blackberry abound.*

Louis

*Many years ago there used to be this thing called a Palm Pilot. That device still causes hilarity today. It's been a slow decade.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,13:55   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,16:09)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 03 2009,09:56)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 03 2009,15:45)
 
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:50)
   
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 03 2009,07:46)
(snip)

Come on now, you should be able to do that as it is well known and you have all of these "laws" you can invoke.
As I don't have the edit function yet, that should be the EXACT Path, with 100% accuracy.

After all, isn't that what you are asking from others?
I keep waiting for some YEC historian to claim "if science can't tell us precisely where Lewis and Clark were every second of every day during their 1804 historic expedition across America, then Lewis and Clarke never existed!"


:D  :D  :D
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how I got to and from the pub by providing details of every step along the way. Because otherwise it's impossible that I've ever been in a pub, despite the fact that I am currently in a gutter wearing a traffic cone and a pair of fake breasts.

Louis

Wouldn't it also be science to say that it is impossible for Daniel to not show that his beloved Jebus didn't also find himself in a gutter, with dung on his head, fake breasts and a sore ass coming (or maybe he already came) from a bar?

Well of course it would. However, it would not be science if it was Mohammed. Unless you were talking to a muslim of course, in which case it would be.

HTH HAND.

Louis

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,16:29   

if you can't prove it ain't a duck and it walks and talks like something between a duck and a non-duck, then the EF tells you have a duck.  


since claims about what things "are" anyway are only justified when you accept Jesus and the tripartite god of the bible and I can lead a sinner to the cross but can't make him bow, then our usage of that verb and tense here is purely instrumental and in no way implies any ontological commitments save those necessary for measurement.

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,19:13   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,16:13)
Quote (BWE @ Mar. 01 2009,21:09)
Daniel, may I ask you a question? Why would you choose xianity over the great spirit?

Jesus.

On what basis do you choose Jesus over the Great Spirit?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,19:15   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,17:35)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 02 2009,16:34)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,18:13)
   
Quote (BWE @ Mar. 01 2009,21:09)
Daniel, may I ask you a question? Why would you choose xianity over the great spirit?
Jesus.

Was that a swear word?  Or are you saying that Jesus is more real to you than the Great Spirit.  Personally, I think there's as much evidence for Cthulhu.

What about some of the stories of other "gods born of mortal women" and "gods that died and rose from the dead"?

Osiris comes to mind.

Mitra is another

Christianity is about the God/man Jesus and the redemption of man via the sacrificial love of God.  And yes, Jesus is real to me.  That's why I choose Christianity over the great spirit.

P.S. - it's not about evidence or stories.  I've experienced the reality of Christ - that's enough for me.

I didn't read on far enough. I have experienced the Great Spirit. Does that make one of us wrong?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,19:25   

Here's the part that confuses me: How is it that you experienced Jesus and that makes evolution false? If you experienced Jesus then you know that the book is allegorical, right?

And if you examine the evidence for evolution, you notice pretty quick that it's not allegorical, right? I mean, there's all those nested hierarchies, the fact that you don't look quite like your parents (maybe closer to your mother than your father). What about the broken vitamin C gene (GULO?) shared by everything above a specific nest in the heirarchy thing?

You're saying, if I understand you correctly, that because you experienced Jesus, you know that the conclusions that we draw from actually looking at things are worse than the conclusions we draw from listening to Jimmy Swaggart?

I'm a little confused. If you want to deny evolution because of a book written a loooooong time ago, do you also believe that there was a global flood while humans habitated the globe?

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,20:11   

Quote (BWE @ Mar. 04 2009,03:25)
Here's the part that confuses me: How is it that you experienced Jesus and that makes evolution false? If you experienced Jesus then you know that the book is allegorical, right?

And if you examine the evidence for evolution, you notice pretty quick that it's not allegorical, right? I mean, there's all those nested hierarchies, the fact that you don't look quite like your parents (maybe closer to your mother than your father). What about the broken vitamin C gene (GULO?) shared by everything above a specific nest in the heirarchy thing?

You're saying, if I understand you correctly, that because you experienced Jesus, you know that the conclusions that we draw from actually looking at things are worse than the conclusions we draw from listening to Jimmy Swaggart?

I'm a little confused. If you want to deny evolution because of a book written a loooooong time ago, do you also believe that there was a global flood while humans habitated the globe?

Allegaterz?

Jesus that will make his eye's bulge, he could get a spontaneous nose bleed.

Daniel is a frikken FUNDAMENTALIST he doesn't do allegory....OK?

Flood? What, you mean the one in the bible?
And your point?

Probably believes in ghosts witches and the real existence of SATAN too.

And because evolution through natural selection is confirmed all the the way back through deep time on earth and helps confirm plate tectonics he doesn't believe that either !!

*************so raspberries to you BWE

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,20:15   

Cudsworth/Denial

Do you believe in witches?

yes or no

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 03 2009,20:51   

Well Daniel?  Are you going to come back or are you going to avoid these questions?

Seems you run away when your idea of a god is questioned.  To me, it seems you are of little faith.  If your faith was strong, you'd be able to respond intelligently, factually and with vigor.

I see nothing like that in you.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,01:39   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 04 2009,03:51)
Well Daniel?  Are you going to come back or are you going to avoid these questions?

Seems you run away when your idea of a god is questioned.  To me, it seems you are of little faith.  If your faith was strong, you'd be able to respond intelligently, factually and with vigor.

I see nothing like that in you.

Well, that's the thing, i'nit?

When you see the FTKs, RFJEs and Denials of the world, spending all their time trying to fight off science because it doesn't comply to their beliefs, you can bet your ass that it's because their faith is pretty weak.

Someone strong in faith shouldn't feel threatened by anything. And someone strong in faith shouldn't feel the need to try and indoctrinate others, because their faith is so strong they KNOW it to be the ultimate thruth, and thus are confident that others will come to the same conclusion eventualy.

Denial and co. are nothing more than your usual street corner fraud, and their faith is as solid as a chocolate kettle.

Edited to correct a typo.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,02:22   

Part 1...

 
Quote (JAM @ Mar. 02 2009,22:07)
                           
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 02 2009,20:14)
JAM:

                             
Quote

[JQ1] Put another way, the point I'm trying to make is that ID can be viewed as a scientific hypothesis, and that our public efforts might be better spent by educating the public about the scientific method and using ID as an explicit example of a false hypothesis. ID proponents are simply lying and asserting that the predictions are true instead of testing them empirically.


I'm working from those words of yours. If you need to significantly change what is meant by them, then I think the proofreader performed good service.

No, you weren't working from those words.

You fabricated four things I didn't write, put them inside quotation marks, and attributed them to me, apparently because you can't deal rationally with someone suggesting improvements that might improve the sorry state of science education.

Debating these turds on a stage just makes things worse, but you're apparently proud of participating in that.


Marking concepts in quotes is not attribution. I'll see what I can do in Eliza mode, though, and maybe you can get what I've been saying. Because I'm pulling in your text from several comments, I'm going to number them for reference.

Look again at what you wrote in [JQ1]. Your words do not admit the later back-pedaling that you attempted. You were not talking about what IDC advocates view their stuff as, you were talking about ID being a false hypothesis and treating ID to analysis as a scientific hypothesis.

Some of what you responded with is simply bizarre.

JAM:

                         
Quote

[JQ2] Let's try that again in another way so that it might get through to you--with rare exceptions, ID proponents do not propose scientific hypotheses because they are afraid to do so. I am proposing that we do that for them to better educate the public.


Three points: What exceptions? Why are you moving the goalposts to analysis of some unknown and speculative interior mental state of IDC advocates, since nothing of the sort appears in your original [JQ1] quote? And how is what you propose doing in the [JQ2] quote going to be responded to as anything except erecting strawmen?

If there are exceptions, what exactly does that mean? You are, if nothing else, dangerously ambiguous. It looks like you are saying that IDC advocates rarely propose scientific hypotheses -- doesn't that permit the reader to embrace the notion that they've done so at least once? You invite folks like Dembski to assert that as a possible reading.

JAM:

                         
Quote

[JQ3] They don't do it at all. I am proposing that we do it for them for the benefit of the public.


This is inconsistent, if not contradictory, to your original [JQ1] quote. Either they've provided a hypothesis for you to demonstrate to be false per your original [JQ1] quote, or you are inventing something to attribute to them as per the [JQ3] quote just above, which will be handwaved away as a strawman. Since I pointed out the problem in your original [JQ1] quote, you've taken a couple of tries at a response. First, there was this...

JAM:

                         
Quote

[JQ4] Let's see...start with a hypothesis of ID. If ID proponents don't bother to test the predictions of their hypothesis, they aren't doing science. How is that so complicated?


For that to make any sense at all, one has to grant that ID proponents have a hypothesis such that one can say it is theirs, and that their hypothesis has predictions. I pointed out that this is problematic, too. Somebody here may have teed off without thinking, but the evidence says it isn't me.

After that, you've been insistent that you've all along thought that the IDC advocates haven't provided a hypothesis, false or otherwise. But I wonder what, exactly, was supposed to be viewed as a scientific hypothesis in your original [JQ1] quote in that case, or where the hypothesis with untested predictions came from that you referred to in the [JQ4] quote immediately above.

JAM:

                         
Quote

[JQ5] They have provided nothing but assertions. I have never ceded that they have provided a scientific hypothesis, and all your fake quotes won't help except in your own mind. I am proposing that we help the public to view ID assertions as hypotheses--then the fact that they reject science becomes more obvious.


You said in your original [JQ1] quote that predictions were said to be true by ID advocates. You said in your [JQ4] quote that there were predictions from their hypothesis. Will the real JAM please stand up? Where, exactly, did the predictions you were talking about come from? Do assertions have predictions? You didn't seem to think so in 2007.

JAM (2007/10/05):

                         
Quote

[JQ6] Why not grow some balls and make a prediction instead of hiding from the evidence and making assertions?


So, where do the predictions mentioned in [JQ1] and [JQ4] come from if you really meant assertion instead of hypothesis as appears in those, and consistency is maintained with your earlier discussion of predictions and assertions as seen in [JQ6]?

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,02:24   

Part 2...

JAM:

                       
Quote

[JQ7] No, specifically, their "practice of science" is nonexistent, because ID proponents do not bother to put their assertions in the form of hypotheses. What I am proposing as an improvement over the sorry state of science education in the country is that we help laypeople to view their assertion as a scientific hypothesis, so that laypeople can see that ID proponents lack sufficient faith to do science by testing the empirical predictions of a hypothesis.


The notion of somehow repackaging IDC assertions as hypotheses is a novelty you invented after the problems in [JQ1] and [JQ4] were pointed out. Those discussed the thing to be analyzed as a hypothesis, identified the source as the IDC proponents, specified that predictions followed from that, specified that IDC advocates assert the predictions are true (that's problematic if all they are supposed to be credited with are prediction-less assertions), and simply quibbled that IDC advocates didn't take steps to empirically test their predictions. The proposal of [JQ7] is not a clarification of either [JQ1] or [JQ4]. We're back to inconsistency in your treatment, though, even if we only consider [JQ7] as being on the table, as it doesn't look like you think assertions have predictions, as seen in the [JQ6] quote.

The various confusions and inconsistencies seen in the quotes above are reflected in the other part of JAM's original post, the part JAM referred to as being expressed in other words in the [JQ1] quote. Let's have a look.

JAM:

       
Quote

[JQ8] But the bigger point I'd like to discuss here is the one that I opened the thread with -- that Daniel's rank dishonesty is the end product of an implicit scientific process:

1) Dan actually has an internally coherent ID hypothesis rattling around in his brain.

2) His hypothesis predicts that the intelligently-designed enzymes must be unique--they cannot be related to other enzymes and they cannot catalyze multiple reactions.

3) Dan is an intellectual coward and afraid to consider that his hypothesis might be false. Therefore, he lies, asserting that the prediction, which he has stated as "[each amino acid] requires its own unique [synthetic] enzyme," and "They are unique in the sense that they only catalyze one reaction.  This is true of all enzymes generally."

4) Since both of these assertions are spectacularly false, Dan's ID hypothesis is clearly falsified.


Note the deployment of terms in the above. One needs to consider how antievolution advocates will treat arguments as opportunities, and [JQ8] provides a highly exploitable way to describe the state of affairs. Daniel is credited with use of an implicit scientific process, one where he forms an internally consistent hypothesis, develops predictions that follow from the internally consistent hypothesis, announces those predictions publicly, and asserts that the predictions are true. The assertion term is not consistently used as a descriptor of what Daniel provides, but rather is specific to Daniel's treatment of the predictions made from his hypothesis.

JAM has made a variety of assertions that I irrationally oppose a general approach to better informing the public of the deficiencies of IDC. JAM is misinformed, because for the project of assessing IDC assertions in the context of scientific analysis for the benefit of the public, JAM is late to the party. Of course, Why Intelligent Design Fails (WIDF) didn't leave hanging loads of ambiguous phrasing that could give aid and comfort to the IDC movement, so the IDC crowd acts as if WIDF does not exist, and only rarely do you see an IDC advocate taking notice of WIDF. I point this out not simply to note that the WIDF effort somehow got done several years ago, but also to note that I significantly contributed to its creation and development. If JAM had read the front matter, JAM would have learned that the WIDF project arose from my email list bringing together various IDC critics and utilized that as the main line of communication for the project, and JAM also might have noticed a chapter had my name on it. I certainly feel that IDC assertions can be dissected for the public and shown not to be science, as WIDF demonstrates vividly. I just want it to be done competently.

Rationally, one does not offer to confuse the public by saying that ad hoc assertions can be somehow translated or transformed into, or even inspire, hypotheses with predictions; one instead demonstrates that the assertions fail to form a basis for prediction and thus for empirical test, and that these deficits mean that such assertions have no hope of being considered scientific hypotheses. (For the specific case with Daniel, this means that his bizarre assertions about the nature of protein chemistry and biology are treated as what we know them to be, simple assertions that have no known foundation. No speculation about unevidenced internal mental states need be entered into, and no unwarranted elevation of assertion to prediction need be used. This state of affairs can be contrasted with the progression of ideas in the scientific method, where hypotheses generate testable predictions that then get tested, where the empirical results determine whether we treat the hypothesis as false or not.) One can then also demonstrate the extent to which the assertions themselves are unfounded, utilizing the findings of science, which at once shows that the assertions are false and also that those making the false assertions could have -- and should have -- known so by examination of the content of science. (Again, for the proximate case with Daniel, this means that the various empirical research items that show Daniel's assertions to be plainly at odds with the findings of science are precisely the way to demonstrate that he is making claims in ignorance.) We did this with WIDF. Sloppy and indiscriminate use of terms like hypothesis and prediction, with attributions of source within the IDC movement, have no place in this endeavor, and actually contribute to public misunderstanding of science.

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

    
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,03:07   

Quote (BWE @ Mar. 03 2009,19:25)
I'm a little confused. If you want to deny evolution because of a book written a loooooong time ago, do you also believe that there was a global flood while humans habitated the globe?

Daniel has previously said:
 
Quote
I haven't really studied both sides of the whole "age of the earth" debate, so I'm not prepared to give an answer on those.

 
Quote
I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it.  My main reason for believing it (other than the bible), is that the landscape looks like the aftermath of massive flood runoff when viewed from the air.  Not very scientific, I know but that's where I'm at.  (insert joke here)

 
Quote
As for the flood, I'll tell you what I told him: I don't know enough about the current state of research to make up my mind one way or another. I haven't concerned myself with it, it's not central to my beliefs, I don't have a problem with the currently accepted time frame.

 
Quote
I want to congratulate you all. I came here with an argument, and, while none of you have managed to counter that argument (or any of the many forms it has taken since then), you have managed to successfully counter an argument I never made (the flood/age of the earth). You've defeated a position I never researched, never pursued, and never disputed. (I did, however, express my indifference to the subject.)

 
Quote
I will make a deal with you all: When you can answer my challenge to show a workable natural pathway that successfully explains the origin of some living system, then I'll debate you on the age of the earth and the flood. Until then, get off your high horses and think for a moment about what you believe.

I think that is a "yes". So Daniel, who had VD on the Ark?

--------------
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: Mar. 04 2009,06:35   

noah's old lady got bored waiting for a rainy day for a hundred years while he built the worlds largest box of crap.  seems like a no brainer, he wasn't getting laid.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,06:55   

Expect a MASSIVE goal post shift from Daniel if he deigns to post again people.

Also please note the thoroughness of the side spat from the REAL people who actually care about science.

That's for you Daniel.

Some people who actually know what they are talking about, care about actual ....er Honesty as if their lives depended on it.

You don't, you only have your mind to lose.

That's the difference between SHIT and science.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,06:58   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 04 2009,03:07)
(snip)

I think that is a "yes". So Daniel, who had VD on the Ark?

The sheep had the STDs.

Then men of old were just too happy to get some "fresh mutton".

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,07:15   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 04 2009,14:58)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 04 2009,03:07)
(snip)

I think that is a "yes". So Daniel, who had VD on the Ark?

The sheep had the STDs.

Then men of old were just too happy to get some "fresh mutton".

Daniel is an individual NOT A SHEEP

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,11:41   

Daniel you are asking for detailed in the extreme evidence for things that you know we have no complete direct answer to and you have been told that many times now.

Why don't you lower your sights a little and chose a target that lies right before your eyes: The evidence - or lack thereof, for Noah's flood? Or is your faith flexible enough to survive a global no-flood past, to the extent that you don't care one way or the other? You are not afraid that you'd run into even greater problems there, are you?

You realize that if there was a flood, there still must be lots of evidence available? You are a virtuoso at digging for quotes, it shouldn't take you long to come up with conclusive evidence for the Flood, seeing how you have beaten all opposition to your take down of the theory of evolution;-)

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,13:44   

Hey Daniel,


Looking to see if you're going to contribute or slink away and hide as you have then have nothing to contribute, only your dogma.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,13:55   

Daniel please provide the EXACT pathways for how God made all the Animals on the ARK.

It would be nice if you explained the business about fresh cf salt water fish etc etc

Fungi, insects all the plants, don't forget Kangaroos where the water came from and where it went and so on too.

Did I say please?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,13:58   

also please account for why a particular salt particle should be in the arctic ocean as opposed to the dead sea?

where do witches' powers come from?  we need a full account here, handwaving and appeals to authority do not suffice (unless they support your argument of course)

finally can you explain how k.e.. manages to always have a hand free?

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,14:01   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 04 2009,21:58)
also please account for why a particular salt particle should be in the arctic ocean as opposed to the dead sea?

where do witches' powers come from?  we need a full account here, handwaving and appeals to authority do not suffice (unless they support your argument of course)

finally can you explain how k.e.. manages to always have a hand free?

What's the most sensitive part of a man when he's tossing off?

His ears.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,14:03   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 04 2009,13:58)
(snip)

finally can you explain how k.e.. manages to always have a hand free?

Isn't that something about getting so good that he's able to switch hands and GAIN a stroke?

:p

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,14:09   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 04 2009,22:03)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 04 2009,13:58)
(snip)

finally can you explain how k.e.. manages to always have a hand free?

Isn't that something about getting so good that he's able to switch hands and GAIN a stroke?

:p

LOL

Actually it's much better with six hands  (or so I'm told kiddies)

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,14:44   

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 04 2009,14:15)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 04 2009,14:58)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 04 2009,03:07)
(snip)

I think that is a "yes". So Daniel, who had VD on the Ark?

The sheep had the STDs.

Then men of old were just too happy to get some "fresh mutton".

Daniel is an individual NOT A SHEEP

Thanks k.e, now I feel obliged to blow the dust off my Life Of Brian DVD!

See ya on the bright side of life!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,18:26   

Wow, you take one day off and people make up all kinds of stories about where you've been and why!

Anyway, rather than argue about "unique" enzymes any longer with JAM, I've decided to change the wording of my Argument from Impossibility.  The gist of my argument was never about the "uniqueness" of the enzymes anyway - it's always been about the impossibility of constructing a believable step-by-step evolutionary pathway leading up to the present system.

Maybe now we can get back to that goalpost.

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,18:32   

mmmh....still a kiddy foundler, then...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,18:59   

believable to you being the operative hidden word, sophist.

wherever you have been, you can't prove to the level of detail you claim to require that you were NOT diddling kiddies, you sicko.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,19:20   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 04 2009,19:26)
The gist of my argument was never about the "uniqueness" of the enzymes anyway - it's always been about the impossibility of constructing a believable step-by-step evolutionary pathway leading up to the present system.

And we've already established, and you have agreed, that this is not, and cannot be tortured to become, a scientific assertion (end of history and all that).

That discussion has been utterly exhausted. If that's where you're going, I'm done here. ETA: as Erasmus states, "believable to you" is a demonstrably subjective and idiosyncratic metric of little value.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,19:24   

Yep, the point being that we have a lot of "metaphorical" pictures of what evolution was doing at a given point: Fossile record and all that. We know that evolution was no titty twister.

What about you, Denial?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,19:26   

hey now goddammit I am only 32.  christ.  doesn't mean you have to call me names now Bill I know you are in your doddering golden age and what all...

:angry:

ETAWTFISUWMS?

ETA since it's been edited there is nothing to see here.  so this little chestnut is like a conodont you found in your mothers boudoir.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,19:27   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 04 2009,20:26)
hey now goddammit I am only 32.  christ.  doesn't mean you have to call me names now Bill I know you are in your doddering golden age and what all...
:angry:

I fixed that and restored your glistening youth.

(But just you wait.)

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 04 2009,19:33   

RB I only I hope that I may.  You shall be a model for my descent into senescence.  :)

Hey Denial while you are here why don't you talk about species?

Or witches?

Your little evolution can't do it thing is pretty trite.  Needs a few stitches in the bottom end of it.  let's drop it, eh, lover?

species or duh flood or zee witches.  we just want to get to know you better big guy.  i know which one i'd pick.  of course you do as you please don't you sugar?  don't let these mean ol athiest do anything you don't wanna do, full armor and whatnot.

--------------
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: Mar. 05 2009,03:11   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 04 2009,18:26)

Wow, you take one day off and people make up all kinds of stories about where you've been and why!

Did they? I musta missed all that. Do you have some sort of syndrome that makes you think it's all about you, all of the time? That explains alot....
       
Quote
Anyway, rather than argue about "unique" enzymes any longer with JAM

Argue? Seems to me you said a few things which were then shown to be untrue and then to backed away from the argument. You've not actually argued about anything in the conventional sense. You Sir, are a total coward. You know you can't win that argument and, totally by coincidence, have now decided it's not what you really want to argue about at all. Lying coward.
       
Quote
, I've decided to change the wording of my Argument from Impossibility.

So what?
       
Quote
The gist of my argument was never about the "uniqueness" of the enzymes anyway

No, it was about the "elegance" of the system was it? If your "argument" can stand enzymes being unique (as you originally stated) and enzymes not being unique (as you now concede) then what good is your "theory" at all?
       
Quote
- it's always been about the impossibility of constructing a believable step-by-step evolutionary pathway leading up to the present system.

Believable by who, exactly? You? You've already stated you want an impossible standard of evidence and we've already told you that level of evidence (DVD of evolution) is not available.

That you persist in asking I think is making baby Jesus cry.
       
Quote
Maybe now we can get back to that goalpost.

Did you miss the past few pages of this thread?

Daniel, something I always wonder about with people like you is why you believe without question things for which there is no evidence (that your god exists, Jesus lived as in the bible etc) yet for things which there is good evidence (the non-telic evolution of complex biological systems) you absolutely refuse to believe.

Why do you apply one standard of evidence to one thing and a much stricter (in fact, impossible to meet) criteria to the other?

Are you that scared of the truth?

You've had it conceded to you that your argument is impossible to meet and as such you've "won". You've "proven" that only the lord god could have made life. Now that that idiocy has been dispensed with the floor is yours! Lets talk about the global flood shall we? About the evidence for that? Perhaps you could post some of these "photos" that show the evidence for "a massive flood" and if we're lucky some nice geologist might take the time out to explain to you why you are wrong. Wrong because you are, once again, ignorant of the subject and think you know more then people who have spent decades studying the subject at hand.

So, Daniel, given your dishonest, cowardly behaviour do you think anybody is still interested in "debating" with you?

We'll see what happens eh?

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2009,06:32   

Don't forget:

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,20:37)
It doesn't "refute" anything if it cannot be demonstrated Bill.  (Is that "news" to you?)

Conversely, do you agree that if speciation in the mode argued by Mayr (allopatric speciation originating in the geographic isolation of populations, culminating in reproductive isolation and therefore speciation) has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community, your argument has been refuted?

Yes or no.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2009,08:41   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 04 2009,18:26)

[QUOTE=Daniel]Wow, you take one day off and people make up all kinds of stories about where you've been and why![/QUOTE]That is due to dropping off suddenly with no mention that you were doing or going somewhere else is a standard ID/Creto evasion tactic.  When the going gets rough and the questions too hard, punt
Quote
Anyway, rather than argue about "unique" enzymes any longer with JAM, I've decided to change the wording of my Argument from Impossibility.  The gist of my argument was never about the "uniqueness" of the enzymes anyway - it's always been about the impossibility of constructing a believable step-by-step evolutionary pathway leading up to the present system.
That is what we call politely "Argument for Personal Incredulity"  Personally, I like to call it what it really is, "Argument from Perpetual & Willful Ignorance"
Quote
Maybe now we can get back to that goalpost.
Which you have changed.

You stated that each enzyme is uniquely made for one reaction.  It was shown that is not the case.

As for "step by step" pathway, those too have been shown to be not only possible but highly probable but you refuse to accept it as you have "never seen it".  As you've never seen your god, I wonder how you can believe in that.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2009,09:50   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 04 2009,01:39)
       
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 04 2009,03:51)
Well Daniel?  Are you going to come back or are you going to avoid these questions?

Seems you run away when your idea of a god is questioned.  To me, it seems you are of little faith.  If your faith was strong, you'd be able to respond intelligently, factually and with vigor.

I see nothing like that in you.

Well, that's the thing, i'nit?

When you see the FTKs, RFJEs and Denials of the world, spending all their time trying to fight off science because it doesn't comply to their beliefs, you can bet your ass that it's because their faith is pretty weak.

Someone strong in faith shouldn't feel threatened by anything. And someone strong in faith shouldn't feel the need to try and indoctrinate others, because their faith is so strong they KNOW it to be the ultimate thruth, and thus are confident that others will come to the same conclusion eventualy.

Denial and co. are nothing more than your usual street corner fraud, and their faith is as solid as a chocolate kettle.

Edited to correct a typo.

[Nothing new here.  Just move along]

I've also been thinking about the motivations of Christians who expend so much energy challenging evolutionary science.  Evolution sticks in their craw because it directly debunks the Jesus Story*.

Let's review:

1. Evolution means that there was no Garden of Eden*, no Forbidden Fruit*, no Fall of Man* (and Woman).

2. No Fall of Man* means no requirement for Atonement* for the Primal Sin of Disobedience*.

3. No Atonement* negates the rationale for Jesus being Incarnated* and (Tortured to Death).

4. Without the Jesus Story*, Christianity loses its rationale.

(BTW, I suspect that Daniel Smith's reluctance to take a position on the age of the earth and to question the Noachian Flood* are reflections of a Creationist* mindset.)

-------------------
*Copyrighted myths

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 05 2009,10:27   

Quote (mitschlag @ Mar. 05 2009,17:50)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 04 2009,01:39)
         
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 04 2009,03:51)
Well Daniel?  Are you going to come back or are you going to avoid these questions?

Seems you run away when your idea of a god is questioned.  To me, it seems you are of little faith.  If your faith was strong, you'd be able to respond intelligently, factually and with vigor.

I see nothing like that in you.

Well, that's the thing, i'nit?

When you see the FTKs, RFJEs and Denials of the world, spending all their time trying to fight off science because it doesn't comply to their beliefs, you can bet your ass that it's because their faith is pretty weak.

Someone strong in faith shouldn't feel threatened by anything. And someone strong in faith shouldn't feel the need to try and indoctrinate others, because their faith is so strong they KNOW it to be the ultimate thruth, and thus are confident that others will come to the same conclusion eventualy.

Denial and co. are nothing more than your usual street corner fraud, and their faith is as solid as a chocolate kettle.

Edited to correct a typo.

[Nothing new here.  Just move along]

I've also been thinking about the motivations of Christians who expend so much energy challenging evolutionary science.  Evolution sticks in their craw because it directly debunks the Jesus Story*.

Let's review:

1. Evolution means that there was no Garden of Eden*, no Forbidden Fruit*, no Fall of Man* (and Woman).

2. No Fall of Man* means no requirement for Atonement* for the Primal Sin of Disobedience*.

3. No Atonement* negates the rationale for Jesus being Incarnated* and (Tortured to Death).

4. Without the Jesus Story*, Christianity loses its rationale.

(BTW, I suspect that Daniel Smith's reluctance to take a position on the age of the earth and to question the Noachian Flood* are reflections of a Creationist* mindset.)

-------------------
*Copyrighted myths

Well it's all in their interpretation which seems to be some sort of Straussian crypto fascism.

They can justify anything when their version of god did the same.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,04:23   

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 05 2009,10:27)

Well it's all in their interpretation which seems to be some sort of Straussian crypto fascism.

They can justify anything when their version of god did the same.

It's been so quiet here lately.

OK, k.e., I shudder in anticipation of your explanation:

What is Straussian crypto fascism? ???

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,05:25   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 04 2009,18:26)
 The gist of my argument was never about the "uniqueness" of the enzymes anyway - it's always been about the impossibility of constructing a believable step-by-step evolutionary pathway leading up to the present system.

Maybe now we can get back to that goalpost.

I have to wonder how you expect people to "get back to that goalpost" when there is nothing more to be said on the issue. If you had an argument to advance the cause you would have made it in that comment. Instead you appear to think you can instruct the people here to dance to your tune, you silly little man.

You appear to be waiting for people to advance an endless sequence of arguments when you've already decided in advance that no argument will convince you.

The illogic of your postion is summed up nicely by the quoted text above.

Yes, maybe we can get back to that goalpost. But how? We've all noticed that does not actually require any effort on your behalf. All you have to do is sit and wait while people show you something and you can go "nope, does not meet my challenge".

Expect this thread to dry up very shortly Denial.

Unless of course you want to talk about evidence for a world wide flood? But you've already said you won't do that until somebody here meets your challenge. As has been pointed out, your challgenge is impossible to meet in the level of detail you have indicated you require.

Therefore you are offering something that, by your own stated rules, you'll never do.

Which seems to me dishonest. Sure, I'll tidy my room Mom, but only once you've proven to me that I made the mess by charting the path of every atom in every toy in the room, otherwise I simply won't believe I made the mess!

Tell me Daniel, what part of the Bible condones such dishonest behaviour? Do you have a special version?

--------------
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: Mar. 06 2009,06:43   

I believe there is an internet phrase the young kids are using these days that captures the sentiment here.  I am not sure what it is.  Perhaps you younger whippersnappers can recall it.

something about "Teats or GFY" or something like that.  

anyway Denial TITS

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,18:58   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 05 2009,04:32)
Don't forget:

     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,20:37)
It doesn't "refute" anything if it cannot be demonstrated Bill.  (Is that "news" to you?)

Conversely, do you agree that if speciation in the mode argued by Mayr (allopatric speciation originating in the geographic isolation of populations, culminating in reproductive isolation and therefore speciation) has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community, your argument has been refuted?

Yes or no.

No.

Schindewolf raised three valid objections with Mayr's definition of species:

1. It doesn't apply to asexual organisms.  (That's a big one.)

2. It is untestable.  (How do you test for "reproductive isolation"?)  

3. It can't be applied to fossilized forms.  (How can you tell if a fossil was reproductively isolated?)

So essentially, Mayr's definition is only useful for the classification of living, sexually reproducing organisms.

"Speciation", by that standard, is hardly a refutation of anything.

--------------
"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: Mar. 06 2009,19:16   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 05 2009,06:41)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 04 2009,18:26)
Wow,you take one day off and people make up all kinds of stories about where you've been and why!
That is due to dropping off suddenly with no mention that you were doing or going somewhere else is a standard ID/Creto evasion tactic.  When the going gets rough and the questions too hard, punt      
Quote
Anyway, rather than argue about "unique" enzymes any longer with JAM, I've decided to change the wording of my Argument from Impossibility.  The gist of my argument was never about the "uniqueness" of the enzymes anyway - it's always been about the impossibility of constructing a believable step-by-step evolutionary pathway leading up to the present system.
That is what we call politely "Argument for Personal Incredulity"  Personally, I like to call it what it really is, "Argument from Perpetual & Willful Ignorance"      
Quote
Maybe now we can get back to that goalpost.
Which you have changed.

You stated that each enzyme is uniquely made for one reaction.  It was shown that is not the case.

As for "step by step" pathway, those too have been shown to be not only possible but highly probable but you refuse to accept it as you have "never seen it".  As you've never seen your god, I wonder how you can believe in that.

First, I've been here for awhile.  Why should I cut and run?  I've got you all on the ropes!

Second, I never stated that each enzyme was uniquely made for only one reaction.  I did say that each reaction requires it's own unique enzyme, but the emphasis (in my mind anyway) was not on the "unique" part, but on the "requires" part.  Most of the chemical reactions that take place in life require enzymes.  

As to their uniqueness, I agree that "unique" is not the best word to describe them because it is too restrictive a term.  Everything I've read on enzymes so far indicates they are generally highly specific, in fact many are named after the reaction they catalyze, which is an indication of the specificity of their function.

Thirdly, show me the evidence that shows any step by step evolutionary pathway to be "not only possible but highly probable".  (That's a challenge).

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,19:24   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2009,19:16)
As to their uniqueness, I agree that "unique" is not the best word to describe them because it is too restrictive a term.  Everything I've read on enzymes so far indicates they are generally highly specific, in fact many are named after the reaction they catalyze, which is an indication of the specificity of their function.




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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,19:31   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2009,19:16)
 Why should I cut and run?  I've got you all on the ropes!

 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,04:48)
There are many things I have yet to make up my mind about.  For instance; I have not made my mind up in regard to the age of the earth/cosmos as I have not seen all the evidence and probably do not have the expertise to rightly interpret it.

 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 09 2008,18:24)
I believe in the flood


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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,19:35   

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 03 2009,00:24)
     
Quote
- it's not about evidence or stories.  I've experienced the reality of Christ - that's enough for me.

That's enough - for what? Evidence that the symbol of Christ really is a powerful symbol that one may realize, like St. Paul obviously must have experienced, he is quite clear when referring to "Christ in me" - or evidence for the inerrancy of the Bible?

But, what if conclusive proof was found, showing that the Jesus story is a fabrication, modeled after the many accounts of dying-and-resurrecting godmen, accounts that  we know were created as symbols, used as symbols, worshiped as symbols and never believed to be accounts of historical events - until literalism raised its ugly head ~2000 years ago?

Would that lessen the value, the effect or whatever of St. Paul's experience - or yours, or the experience of the millions of people who have had and still may have the same experience?

Prove me wrong, prove that if if it could be shown that the Jesus story is 'only' a myth, then your experience would suddenly be erased?

The point is: "Salvation" does not depend on the historicity of Jesus!

I believe theology might be better for you than the science of which you obviously have a lot of study - with a will and an intent to really understand - to do before you know what you are talking about.

Theology has the obvious advantage for people like you that every man's opinion is as good as the next man's - theology is not science, therefore you can make it into what you want it to be. That's that what you want with science, isn't it?

When will you realize that you are barking up the wrong tree here?

I think you may have found your calling Quack.  Perhaps you should be the one to finally prove that Jesus never existed!  (Good luck with that BTW).
I'm curious as to why you only mention Paul... What of Peter, John, and James?  They too wrote letters to the early churches.  They were contemporaries of Paul and were mentioned in Paul's letters.  They were also eyewitnesses of Jesus' life, death and resurrection.  Is that why you focus only on Paul?

(BTW, just to head you off at the pass - I don't believe the bible is always to be taken literally or that it is inerrant.  I believe it is a collection of historical documents colored by the author's perceptions of what they saw or heard.  It's not the "be-all, end-all" when it comes to God, but it gives us a good idea of what godly people were thinking back then.)

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,19:42   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2009,19:35)
I don't believe the bible is always to be taken literally or that it is inerrant.

Yet you appear to believe that the world was covered in water for 40 days and every living thing squeezed onto an ark.

How do you reconcile the two?

Is there another person in there perhaps, that might want to come out and talk for a while? It's ok, there is nothing to be scared of. We just want to talk!

C'mon, Daniel, how many personalities have you got on the go at once? 3? 4?

I wonder what some of them get up to. At night.

Any worrying, unexplained stains?

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,20:19   

Yes Daniel explain to us how Kangaroos made it onto the ARK?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,20:20   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2009,18:58)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 05 2009,04:32)
Don't forget:

       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,20:37)
It doesn't "refute" anything if it cannot be demonstrated Bill.  (Is that "news" to you?)

Conversely, do you agree that if speciation in the mode argued by Mayr (allopatric speciation originating in the geographic isolation of populations, culminating in reproductive isolation and therefore speciation) has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community, your argument has been refuted?

Yes or no.

No.

Schindewolf raised three valid objections with Mayr's definition of species:

1. It doesn't apply to asexual organisms.  (That's a big one.)

2. It is untestable.  (How do you test for "reproductive isolation"?)  

3. It can't be applied to fossilized forms.  (How can you tell if a fossil was reproductively isolated?)

So essentially, Mayr's definition is only useful for the classification of living, sexually reproducing organisms.

"Speciation", by that standard, is hardly a refutation of anything.

You honestly don't know how you test for reproductive isolation?  You are dumber than I thought.  

if mayr set the domain too restrictive for a universal species concept (neotonous sexual animals) and we STILL see speciation then you are shitting all over yourself, again.  

so what's your definition, Denial?  Your number 1 is correct.  Your number 2 is false.  Your number 3 is a nonsequitor, as it has absolutely no bearing on speciation whatever the fuck anyone decides to call a fossil.

What is your definition?  Not schindewolf's and not Noahs and not fucking Plato.  DENIAL SMITHS definition.

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

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

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

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

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,20:26   

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 06 2009,21:19)
Yes Daniel explain to us how Kangaroos made it onto the ARK?

And how the koalas made it to Australia along with the 100' eucalyptus trees (necessary for their survival).

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,20:28   

Quote
Thirdly, show me the evidence that shows any step by step evolutionary pathway to be "not only possible but highly probable".  (That's a challenge).


What that is, is it's irrelevant.

Suppose that a trillion lineages try a trillion different pathways, and out of those a few thousand succeed.

What then is the probability that one of the winners had a winning hand?

Henry

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,20:28   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2009,19:58)
No.

Schindewolf raised three valid objections with Mayr's definition of species:

1. It doesn't apply to asexual organisms.  (That's a big one.)

Oops. Need to work on that logic thing, Daniel. No one has claimed that allopatric speciation is the only mode of speciation. The question is: Would the demonstration of allopatric speciation, sans saltations, in any biological domain refute your position? Even a domain as insignificant, and irrelevant to our own emergence, as that of sexually reproducing species?  
   
Quote
2. It is untestable.  (How do you test for "reproductive isolation"?)

Well,
   
Quote
Simulating secondary contact in allopatric speciation: an empirical test of premating isolation
Authors: GRANT, B. ROSEMARY1; GRANT, PETER R.
Source: Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 76, Number 4, August 2002 , pp. 545-556(12)
Publisher: Blackwell Publishing

Allopatric populations of Geospiza difficilis, the Sharp-beaked Ground Finch, differ morphologically in association with different habitats to an extent unrivalled by any other species of Darwin's finch. The question arises as to whether they have diverged so much that they would not interbreed if they became sympatric; in other words, have they become separate species while remaining allopatric? In other species of Darwin's finches, it is known that a sexual imprinting-like process based on early learning of song constrains breeding to conspecifics in sympatry. Therefore we used song playback experiments on Isla Genovesa to test the potential of G. difficilis to respond to songs from two other populations of the species on other, ecologically similar, islands. We found strong responses by males to songs of their own population, and heterogeneous but overall weaker responses to the structurally similar songs of G. difficilis from Isla Darwin. Tested birds did not respond to G. difficilis songs from Isla Wolf, songs of G. fuliginosa from Isla Pinta and control Cassin's finch songs. Female responses were infrequent and weak, apparently inhibited by the presence of responding males in most instances. Thus, assuming that females exercise similar discriminations to those of males, the Genovesa population of G. difficilis appears to be well advanced along the path of speciation: reproductively isolated from the Wolf population by a premating barrier to gene exchange that is culturally inherited, but not reproductively isolated from the Darwin population. We discuss the implications of imprinting for the process of speciation, the reasons for divergence of songs in allopatry, and the outcome of a hypothetical secondary contact in terms of coexistence, competition and interbreeding.?© 2002 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 76, 545-556.

And...
   
Quote
Letter
Nature 437, 1353-1356 (27 October 2005) | doi:10.1038/nature04004; Received 10 May 2005; Accepted 11 July 2005


Reinforcement drives rapid allopatric speciation
Conrad J. Hoskin1, Megan Higgie1, Keith R. McDonald2 & Craig Moritz3
1. School of Integrative Biology, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Queensland 4072, Australia
2. Queensland Parks and Wildlife Service, PO Box 975, Atherton, Queensland 4883, Australia
3. Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720, USA

Allopatric speciation results from geographic isolation between populations. In the absence of gene flow, reproductive isolation arises gradually and incidentally as a result of mutation, genetic drift and the indirect effects of natural selection driving local adaptation1, 2, 3. In contrast, speciation by reinforcement is driven directly by natural selection against maladaptive hybridization1, 4. This gives individuals that choose the traits of their own lineage greater fitness, potentially leading to rapid speciation between the lineages1, 4. Reinforcing natural selection on a population of one of the lineages in a mosaic contact zone could also result in divergence of the population from the allopatric range of its own lineage outside the zone4, 5, 6. Here we test this with molecular data, experimental crosses, field measurements and mate choice experiments in a mosaic contact zone between two lineages of a rainforest frog. We show that reinforcing natural selection has resulted in significant premating isolation of a population in the contact zone not only from the other lineage but also, incidentally, from the closely related main range of its own lineage. Thus we show the potential for reinforcement to drive rapid allopatric speciation.

And...
   
Quote
Testing alternative mechanisms of evolutionary divergence in an African rain forest passerine bird

SMITH, T. B.*,†; CALSBEEK, R.†; WAYNE, R. K.*,†; HOLDER, K. H.‡; PIRES, D.*,†; BARDELEBEN, C.*,†
*Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
†Center for Tropical Research, Institute of the Environment, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
‡Department of Biology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, CA, USA

Models of speciation in African rain forests have stressed either the role of isolation or ecological gradients. Here we contrast patterns of morphological and genetic divergence in parapatric and allopatric populations of the Little Greenbul, Andropadus virens, within different and similar habitats. We sampled 263 individuals from 18 sites and four different habitat types in Upper and Lower Guinea. We show that despite relatively high rates of gene flow among populations, A. virens has undergone significant morphological divergence across the savanna-forest ecotone and mountain-forest boundaries. These data support a central component of the divergence-with-gene-flow model of speciation by suggesting that despite large amounts of gene flow, selection is sufficiently intense to cause morphological divergence. Despite evidence of isolation based on neutral genetic markers, we find little evidence of morphological divergence in fitness-related traits between hypothesized refugial areas. Although genetic evidence suggests populations in Upper and Lower Guinea have been isolated for over 2 million years, morphological divergence appears to be driven more by habitat differences than geographic isolation and suggests that selection in parapatry may be more important than geographic isolation in causing adaptive divergence in morphology.

And...
   
Quote
Speciation in birds: Genes, geography, and sexual selection

Scott V. Edwards*,†,‡, Sarah B. Kingan*,†, Jennifer D. Calkins†,§, Christopher N. Balakrishnan†,¶, W. Bryan Jennings*,†, Willie J. Swanson†,§, and Michael D. Sorenson†,¶

Molecular studies of speciation in birds over the last three decades have been dominated by a focus on the geography, ecology, and timing of speciation, a tradition traceable to Mayr's Systematics and the Origin of Species. However, in the recent years, interest in the behavioral and molecular mechanisms of speciation in birds has increased, building in part on the older traditions and observations from domesticated species. The result is that many of the same mechanisms proffered for model lineages such as Drosophila—mechanisms such as genetic incompatibilities, reinforcement, and sexual selection—are now being seriously entertained for birds, albeit with much lower resolution. The recent completion of a draft sequence of the chicken genome, and an abundance of single-nucleotide polymorphisms on the autosomes and sex chromosomes, will dramatically accelerate research on the molecular mechanisms of avian speciation over the next few years. The challenge for ornithologists is now to inform well studied examples of speciation in nature with increased molecular resolution—to clone speciation genes if they exist—and thereby evaluate the relative roles of extrinsic, intrinsic, deterministic, and stochastic causes for avian diversification.

And...
   
Quote
Theory and speciation

Michael Turelli, a, Nicholas H. Bartonb and Jerry A. Coynec
a Section of Evolution and Ecology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA
b ICAPB, Division of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK EH9 3JT
c Dept of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago, 1101 E. 57th St, Chicago, IL 60637, USA

The study of speciation has become one of the most active areas of evolutionary biology, and substantial progress has been made in documenting and understanding phenomena ranging from sympatric speciation and reinforcement to the evolutionary genetics of postzygotic isolation. This progress has been driven largely by empirical results, and most useful theoretical work has concentrated on making sense of empirical patterns. Given the complexity of speciation, mathematical theory is subordinate to verbal theory and generalizations about data. Nevertheless, mathematical theory can provide a useful classification of verbal theories; can help determine the biological plausibility of verbal theories; can determine whether alternative mechanisms of speciation are consistent with empirical patterns; and can occasionally provide predictions that go beyond empirical generalizations. We discuss recent examples of progress in each of these areas.

   
Quote
3. It can't be applied to fossilized forms.  (How can you tell if a fossil was reproductively isolated?)

By inference from observations, predictions regarding future findings, etc., informed by empirical work on contemporary populations such as that described above. It's called 'consilience.' Look into it.  
   
Quote
So essentially, Mayr's definition is only useful for the classification of living, sexually reproducing organisms.

What you mean to say is that investigation of populations of living, sexually reproducing organisms can have considerable empirically dispositive bearing upon the mode of speciation in which those populations arose.

Would dispositive empirical evidence of instances of allopatric speciation (and other modes of speciation proposed by current theory, for that matter) refute your assertion that saltations are always required?

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,20:53   

AH HA!

So that's what he's doing.

He's looking for evidence of saltation by induction. (erm ....a 12 year old *id's god* made it on the spot with his magical chemistry set)...... ok ok ok he made 2 of them ok? ....AND they were adults ok? ...fuck! ..but please don't tell the kids, ok?

Didn't Behe use the same technique at Dover?

AKA pulling stuff out of your ass on the stand in front of witnesses (and creating much hilarity for everyone in the process. Everyone except eyes in headlights creationists, who Behe had a personal victory chat to via the media sewer outside the courthouse...and they all cheered "he won he won .....don't they get it"?) They really are children.

Asstrology is science BUT PALM READING ISN'T .....OK?




Daniel: Mary was not God's mother.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,20:54   

Quote
Even a domain as insignificant as that of sexually reproducing species?


I resemble that remark!!!111!!!one!!

Henry

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,20:56   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 02 2009,18:42)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,19:23)
Now, you'll notice that the author doesn't state that an enzyme cannot be modified to do other things.  I also never said that, nor does my argument imply it.

Daniel, if you bothered to read those papers I linked to earlier, you would understand that you don't need to "modify" enzymes. Many of them can "do other things" anyway.

Your capacity to miss the point remains astonishing. Nearly as astonishing as your ignorance about biochemistry.

Could you cite a few specific examples of enzymes that multi-task please?

Thank you.

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

  
subkumquat



Posts: 26
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,21:01   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2009,20:56)
Could you cite a few specific examples of enzymes that multi-task please?

Thank you.

Macrophomate synthase immediately springs to mind.

  
subkumquat



Posts: 26
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,21:04   

Quote (subkumquat @ Mar. 06 2009,21:01)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2009,20:56)
Could you cite a few specific examples of enzymes that multi-task please?

Thank you.

Macrophomate synthase immediately springs to mind.

As does HIV's reverse trasnscriptase.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 06 2009,21:07   

Quote (subkumquat @ Mar. 07 2009,05:01)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2009,20:56)
Could you cite a few specific examples of enzymes that multi-task please?

Thank you.

Macrophomate synthase immediately springs to mind.

Not that it matters much.

Daniel thinks he is on the road to discovering the Holy Grail proving The Flood.

And as such could spend the rest of his retirement dining off his Bible class with your free gaps.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,00:23   

RB really he just don't care.  this is all a fantasy he has about being abused by a bunch of bad bad people, only his particular kink is that he likes nerdy science types to stand on his balls.  i bet he wears a leather thong and a gimp mask while he types (note that under his own standards of justification he will be unable to prove that in fact he is not wearing a leather thong and gimp mask).

he don't even need to know what it is that he is claiming is wrong or impossible or against his gods or whatever.  

it's just "The Other" so it ain't right.

Denial prove me wrong and a foul mouthed internet poster who knows nothing.  Tell us how shall we indeed deal with these asexual organisms?  Arden doesn't count.  

Don't look it up in a book.

This is the crux of the entire issue daniel.  speciation is empirical fact.  it also is why your claim about new systems blah blah is bull shit.  

then let us see how far you can move "system".  That is a hefty post.

ETA  and besides all that it would be nice to see you advance a real claim, not just some hyperbolic neener neener wankatory metaphysics.  And I just honestly am curious as to what you must think about it, given the rest of your... erm.... positions.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,01:04   

Quote (mitschlag @ Mar. 06 2009,12:23)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 05 2009,10:27)

Well it's all in their interpretation which seems to be some sort of Straussian crypto fascism.

They can justify anything when their version of god did the same.

It's been so quiet here lately.

OK, k.e., I shudder in anticipation of your explanation:

What is Straussian crypto fascism? ???

GOOGLZE IT.

I INVENTEDED IT MYSELF ......NO REALLY IT'S TRUE I DID......BUT SO DID SOMEONE ELSE.

LIEZ LIEZ AND MORE LIEZ

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,01:24   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 07 2009,01:31)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2009,19:16)
 Why should I cut and run?  I've got you all on the ropes!

 
[SNIP]

Truly the Dunning Kruger effect at work is an amazing thing to behold.

Louis

P.S. Denial. Enzymes that are multifunctional, try looking up the use of enzymes as catalysts in synthetic chemistry. That electric eel cholesterase I was using the other week seems pretty versatile....

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

  
GCUGreyArea



Posts: 180
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,02:01   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2009,19:16)
 Why should I cut and run?  I've got you all on the ropes!

Daniel, we are not 'on the ropes' in the conventional sense, we are casually leaning against the ropes watching as you stagger around the ring flailing your arms wildly and occasionally hitting yourself in the face...

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,02:38   

Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 07 2009,10:01)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2009,19:16)
 Why should I cut and run?  I've got you all on the ropes!

Daniel, we are not 'on the ropes' in the conventional sense, we are casually leaning against the ropes watching as you stagger around the ring flailing your arms wildly and occasionally hitting yourself in the face...

shhhhhhhh

he's winning.


<snikker>

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,06:39   

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 07 2009,02:38)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 07 2009,10:01)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2009,19:16)
 Why should I cut and run?  I've got you all on the ropes!

Daniel, we are not 'on the ropes' in the conventional sense, we are casually leaning against the ropes watching as you stagger around the ring flailing your arms wildly and occasionally hitting yourself in the face...

shhhhhhhh

he's winning.


<snikker>

You spelled it wrong.

It's not w-i-n-n-i-n-g

it's w-h-i-n-i-n-g

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,06:44   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2009,20:56)
Could you cite a few specific examples of enzymes that multi-task please?

Thank you.

Already did.

Pay attention.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,07:33   

*Head in hands, weeping.*

"Oh, how can we investigate speciation empirically? How? HOW?"

Well,
Quote
Allopatric Divergence, Secondary Contact, and Genetic Isolation in Wild Yeast Populations
Kuehne, Heidi A.1 ; Murphy, Helen A.2; Francis, Chantal A.2; Sniegowski, Paul D.2
Current Biology, Volume 17, issue 5 (March 6, 2007), p. 407-411

In plants and animals, new biological species clearly have arisen as a byproduct of genetic divergence in allopatry. However, our understanding of the processes that generate new microbial species remains limited [1] despite the large contribution of microbes to the world’s biodiversity. A recent hypothesis claims that microbes lack biogeographical divergence because their population sizes are large and their migration rates are presumably high [2, 3]. In recapitulating the classic microbial-ecology dictum that “everything is everywhere, and the environment selects” [4, 5], this hypothesis casts doubt on whether geographic divergence promotes speciation in microbes. To date, its predictions have been tested primarily with data from eubacteria and archaebacteria [6–8]. However, this hypothesis’s most important implication is in sexual eukaryotic microbes, where migration and genetic admixture are specifically predicted to inhibit allopatric divergence and speciation [9]. Here, we use nuclear-sequence data from globally distributed natural populations of the yeast Saccharomyces paradoxus to investigate the role of geography in generating diversity in sexual eukaryotic microbes. We show that these populations have undergone allopatric divergence and then secondary contact without genetic admixture. Our data thus support the occurrence of evolutionary processes necessary for allopatric speciation in sexual microbes.

And...
Quote
Origin, radiation, dispersion and allopatric hybridization in the chub Leuciscus cephalus
Dominique Durand, Erhan Ünlü, Ignacio Doadrio, Samvel Pipoyan, Alan R. Templeton, Jean
Proceedings: Biological Sciences, Volume 267, issue 1453 (August 22, 2000), p. 1687-1697
The phylogenetic relationships of 492 chub ( Leuciscus cephalus ) belonging to 89 populations across the species' range were assessed using 600 base pairs of cytochrome b. Furthermore, nine species belonging to the L. cephalus complex were also analysed (over the whole cytochrome b ) in order to test potential allopatric hybridization with L. cephalus sensu stricto (i.e. the chub). Our results show that the chub includes four highly divergent lineages descending from a quick radiation that took place three million years ago. The geographical distribution of these lineages and results of the nested clade analysis indicated that the chub may have originated from Mesopotamia. Chub radiation probably occurred during an important vicariant event such as the isolation of numerous Turkish river systems, a consequence of the uplift of the Anatolian Plateau (formerly covered by a broad inland lake). Dispersion of these lineages arose from the changes in the European hydrographic network and, thus, the chub and endemic species of the L. cephalus complex met by secondary contacts. Our results show several patterns of introgression, from Leuciscus lepidus fully introgressed by chub mitochondrial DNA to Leuciscus borysthenicus where no introgression at all was detected. We assume that these hybridization events might constitute an important evolutionary process for the settlement of the chub in new environments in the Mediterranean area.

And...
Quote
GENETIC EVIDENCE ON THE DEMOGRAPHY OF SPECIATION IN ALLOPATRIC DOLPHIN SPECIES
Hare, Matthew P.1; Cipriano, Frank2; Palumbi, Stephen R.3
Under a neutral model, the stochastic lineage sorting that leads to gene monophyly proceeds slowly in large populations. Therefore, in many recent species with large population size, the genome will have mixed support for monophyly unless historical bottlenecks have accelerated coalescence. We use genealogical patterns in mitochondrial DNA and in introns of four nuclear loci to test for historical bottlenecks during the speciation and divergence of two temperate Lagenorhynchus dolphin species isolated by tropical Pacific waters (an antitropical distribution). Despite distinct morphologies, foraging behaviors, and mitochondrial DNAs, these dolphin species are polyphyletic at all four nuclear loci. The abundance of shared polymorphisms between these sister taxa is most consistent with the maintenance of large effective population sizes (5.09 × 104 to 10.9 × 104) during 0.74–1.05 million years of divergence. A variety of population size histories are possible, however. We used gene tree coalescent probabilities to explore the rejection region for historical bottlenecks of different intensity given best estimates of effective population size under a strict isolation model of divergence. In L. obliquidens the data are incompatible with a colonization propagule of an effective size of 10 or fewer individuals. Although the ability to reject less extreme historical bottlenecks will require data from additional loci, the intermixed genealogical patterns observed between these dolphin sister species are highly probable only under an extended history of large population size. If similar demographic histories are inferred for other marine antitropical taxa, a parsimonious model for the Pleistocene origin of these distributions would not involve rare breaches of a constant dispersal barrier by small colonization propagules. Instead, a history of large population size in L. obliquidens and L. obscurus contributes to growing biological and environmental evidence that the equatorial barrier became permeable during glacial/interglacial cycles, leading to vicariant isolation of antitropical populations.

And...
Quote
Allopatric origins of microbial species
Whitaker, Rachel J.1
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Volume 361, issue 1475 (November 29, 2006), p. 1975-1984
Although allopatric divergence is a well-accepted mechanism of speciation for eukaryotic macro-organisms, the importance of geographical barriers to divergence in microbial populations is a subject of great debate. Do geographically separated populations of micro-organisms diverge independently, or does their structure fit the often quoted Bass-Becking description ‘everything is everywhere; the environment selects&CloseCurlyQuote;? Aided by high-resolution genetic and genomic tools, the search for ‘microbial marsupials&CloseCurlyQuote; has revealed that in fact both are true; some species of micro-organisms demonstrate allopatric divergence, while others do not. This discovery opens the door for comparative analyses, where questions about the differences in evolutionary and ecological mechanisms that drive divergence and speciation in different microbial species can begin to be explored. Investigating these differences in evolutionary mechanisms will greatly enhance interest in, and understanding of, the dynamic processes that create and maintain the vast diversity of the microbial world.

And...
Quote
RAPID ALLOPATRIC SPECIATION IN LOGPERCH DARTERS (PERCIDAE: PERCINA)
Near, Thomas J.1; Benard, Michael F.2
Evolution, Volume 58, issue 12 (December 1, 2004), p. 2798-2808

Theory predicts that clades diversifying via sympatric speciation will exhibit high diversification rates. However, the expected rate of diversification in clades characterized by allopatric speciation is less clear. Previous studies have documented significantly higher speciation rates in freshwater fish clades diversifying via sympatric versus allopatric modes, leading to suggestions that the geographic pattern of speciation can be inferred solely from knowledge of the diversification rate. We tested this prediction using an example from darters, a clade of approximately 200 species of freshwater fishes endemic to eastern North America. A resolved phylogeny was generated using mitochondrial DNA gene sequences for logperches, a monophyletic group of darters composed of 10 recognized species. Divergence times among logperch species were estimated using a fossil calibrated molecular clock in centrarchid fishes, and diversification rates in logperches were estimated using several methods. Speciation events in logperches are recent, extending from 4.20 ± 1.06 million years ago (mya) to 0.42 ± 0.22 mya, with most speciation events occurring in the Pleistocene. Diversification rates are high in logperches, at some nodes exceeding rates reported for well-studied adaptive radiations such as Hawaiian silverswords. The geographic pattern of speciation in logperches was investigated by examining the relationship between degree of sympatry and the absolute age of the contrast, with the result that diversification in logperches appears allopatric. The very high diversification rate observed in the logperch phylogeny is more similar to freshwater fish clades thought to represent examples of sympatric speciation than to clades representing allopatric speciation. These results demonstrate that the geographic mode of speciation for a clade cannot be inferred from the diversification rate. The empirical observation of high diversification rates in logperches demonstrates that allopatric speciation can occur rapidly.

And...
Quote
Comparison of allopatric scallop populations in northerb Chile
Jollan, Luis; von Brand, Elisabeth; Winkler, Federico
Aquaculture, Volume 137, issue 1-4 (December 1, 1995), p. 50-51
Many species, with a wide geographic distribution and subdivided into populations located at different latitudes, show differences in phenotypic characters like morphology, physiology and behaviour (Mayr, 1963; Vernberg, 1962; Marcus, 1977) and can show differences in genotypes. In many marine invertebrates, the existence of a planctonic phase in their life cycle allows dispersion and genetic exchange between geographically distant populations, reducing or avoiding the genetic differentiation process (Hedgecock, 1986). The purpose of the present study was to determine if genetic differences exist in quantitative traits between allopatric populations of the chilean scallop Argopecten purpuratus (Lamarck 1819), and determine whether these differences can be detected by starch gel electrophoresis (Beaumont, 1991).
Adult scallops were randomly collected from four natural populations located in northern Chile: Iquique (20°08?S, 70°08?W), Bahia Mejillones (23°03?S, 70°22?W) Bahia Inglesa (27°07?S, 70°53 W) and Bahia Tongoy (30°17?S, 71°34?W) and brought to the facilities of the Universidad Catolica del Norte at Coquimborwhere they were acclimatized. Simultaneous spawning and fertilization was performed for the four populations using seven or more individuals from each broodstock, following methods described by DiSalvo et al. (1984). The progeny were reared in tanks and growth and survival data of larvae and juveniles were taken. Starch gel electrophoresis was performed using samples of progeny from the different broodstocks with modified methods described by Fujio (1984).
Significant differences were found for oocyte diameter, larval survival, growth in Iength, juvenile survival, growth in shell height and total weight. From the nine isozymes used to compared the populations, only three were found to be polymorphic (MDH, PGM and ?-GPD) and no significant differences were found in allele frequencies between populations.
We can conclude that genetic differences exist for quantitative traits between scallop populations in northern Chile (Jollan, 1992), but a latitudinal differentiation pattern was neither detected at each trait separately, nor in the electrophoretic analysis.

And...
Quote
Impact of ancestral populations on postzygotic isolation in allopatric speciation
Hayashi, Takehiko I.1 ; Kawata, Masakado1,2 
Population Ecology, Volume 48, issue 2 (April 2006), p. 121 - 130

Postzygotic isolation evolves due to an accumulation of substitutions (potentially deleterious alleles in hybrids) in populations that have become geographically isolated. These potentially deleterious alleles might also be maintained in ancestral populations before geographic isolation. We used an individual-based model to examine the effect of the genetic state of an ancestral population on the evolution of postzygotic isolation after geographic isolation of a population. The results showed that the number of loci at which degenerative alleles are fixed in an ancestral population at equilibrium significantly affects the evolutionary rates of postzygotic isolation between descendant allopatric populations. Our results suggest that: (1) a severe decrease in population size (e.g., less than ten individuals) is not necessary for the rapid evolution of postzygotic isolation (e.g., <10,000 generation); (2) rapid speciation can occur when there is a large difference in the equilibrium number of accumulated degenerative alleles between ancestral and descendant populations; and (3) in an ancestral population maintained at a small effective population size for a long period of time, postzygotic isolation rarely evolves if back mutations that restore the function of degenerative alleles are limited.

And...
Quote
A demonstration of allopatric sibling species within the Gymnophallidae (Digenea)
Bowers, E. A.1; Bartoli, P.2; James, B. L.3
Systematic Parasitology, Volume 17, issue 2 (October 1990), p. 143 - 152

Meiogymnophallus minutus and Meiogymnophallus fossarum n. comb. both use the oystercatcher Haematopus ostralegus as their final host and Scrobicularia plana as the primary host. M. minutus uses only the estuarine cockle Cerastoderma edule as its second host, where it occurs enclosed in mantle epithelium in a wedge-shaped cavity beneath the umbo and causes no apparent damage to the host. In contrast, the metacercariae of M. fossarum occur in a variety of microhabitats in a wide variety of lagoon lamellibranchs, including Cerastoderma glaucum. In this host it occurs free in the extrapallial fluid usually beneath the periostracum along the edges of the two valves, where it severely inhibits shell growth, and also beneath the umbo. Comparative morphology, experimental cross infections, second host and microhabitat selection, together with ecological and geographical distribution, suggest that Meiogymnophallus minutus and M. fossarum n. comb. are allopatric sibling species. The former occurs in estuaries in northern and western Europe and the latter from lagoons along the French Mediterranean coast.

And...
Quote
Strong assortative mating between allopatric sticklebacks as a by-product of adaptation to different environments
Vines, Timothy H.1; Schluter, Dolph1
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Volume 273, issue 1589 (April 22, 2006),
1. University of British Columbia Department of Zoology Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada
Speciation involves the evolution of reproductive isolation between populations. One potentially important mechanism is the evolution of pre- or postzygotic isolation between populations as a by-product of adaptation to different environments. In this paper, we tested for assortative mating between allopatric stickleback populations adapted to different ecological niches. Our experimental design controlled for interpopulation interactions and non-adaptive explanations for assortative mating. We found that prezygotic isolation was surprisingly strong: when given a choice, the majority of matings occurred between individuals from similar environments. Our results indicate that the by-product mechanism is a potent source of reproductive isolation, and likely contributed to the origin of sympatric species of sticklebacks.

And...

Quote
FUNCTIONAL INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE FERTILIZATION SYSTEMS OF TWO ALLOPATRIC POPULATIONS OF CALLOSOBRUCHUS MACULATUS (COLEOPTERA: BRUCHIDAE)
Brown, Denise V.1; Eady, Paul E.1
Evolution, Volume 55, issue 11 (November 1, 2001), p. 2257-2262

Recent studies indicate that postcopulatory sexual selection may represent an important component of the speciation process by initiating reproductive isolation via the evolutionary divergence of fertilization systems. Using two geographically isolated populations of the polyandrous beetle Callosobruchus maculatus, we investigated divergence in fertilization systems by determining the extent of postcopulatory functional incompatibility. Through reciprocal, cross-population matings we were able to separately estimate the effects of male and female population origin and their interaction on the extent of last-male sperm precedence, female receptivity to further copulation and female oviposition. Our results indicate partial incompatibility between the fertilization systems of the two populations at all three functional levels. Males derived from the same population as females outcompete rival, allopatric males with respect to sperm preemption, sperm protection, and ability to stimulate female oviposition. This pattern is reciprocated in both populations indicating that postcopulatory, prezygotic events represent important mechanisms by which between-population gene flow is reduced. We suggest the partial gametic isolation observed is a by-product of the coevolution of male and female fertilization systems by a process of cryptic female choice. Our results are consistent with a mechanism akin to conventional mate choice models although they do not allow us to reject antagonistic sexual coevolution as the mechanism of cryptic female choice.

And...I could go on and on. But formatting these things is a lot of work.

I would say "you get the picture," Daniel, but I am confident that you don't.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,07:54   

*Rends garments*

"How?!  HOW?!"

Well,
Quote
Population genetic structure of New Zealand's endemic corophiid amphipods: evidence for allopatric speciation
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 81, issue 1 (January 2004), p. 119-133

Allozyme electrophoresis was used to examine population genetic structure at inter- and intraspecific levels for the New Zealand endemic corophiid amphipods, Paracorophium lucasi and P. excavatum. Individuals were collected from estuarine and freshwater habitats from North, South and Chatham Islands. Analyses of genetic structure among interspecific populations indicated clear allelic differentiation between the two Paracorophium species (Nei's genetic distance, D = 1.62), as well as considerable intraspecific substructuring ( D = 0.15–0.65). These levels of divergence are similar to interspecific levels for other amphipods and it is proposed that at least two groups from the P. lucasi complex and three from the P. excavatum complex correspond to sibling species. In most cases allopatry can account for the differentiation among the putative sibling species. For populations that share a common coastline we found low levels of differentiation and little or no correlation with geographical distance, suggesting that gene flow is adequate to maintain homogeneous population genetic structure. By contrast, populations on separate coastlines (i.e. isolated by land) showed moderate levels of geographical differentiation indicating restricted gene flow. The juxtaposition of population genetic and biogeographical data for Paracorophium in conjunction with the geological record infers past histories of glacial extirpation, and possible isolating effects of sea-level and landmass changes that have occurred throughout the Plio-Pleistocene. © 2004 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2004, 81, 119–133.

And...
Quote
The allopatric phase of speciation: the sharp-beaked ground finch (Geospiza difficilis) on the Galápagos islands
GRANT, PETER R1; GRANT, B ROSEMARY1; PETREN, KENNETH 1
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 69, issue 3 (March 2000), p. 287 - 317

Using microsatellite DNA variation, morphological measurements and sonagrams made from tape-recordings in the field, we examine the allopatric differentiation of six populations of the sharp-beaked ground finch, Geospiza difficilis, in the Galápagos archipelago. We ask how and why the populations became differentiated, and consider what the differences imply about speciation. An important factor is time G. difficilis is one of the phylogenetically oldest species. Populations became differentiated by adapting in beak morphology to different food supplies. Since beak size and shape also function in conspecific mate recognition and choice, the potential for reproductive isolation from sister and parental taxa arose as a correlated effect of natural selection on resource-exploiting traits. This conforms to a standard explanation for the origin of pre-mating isolation as a byproduct of adaptive changes in allopatry without being adaptive itself. However, this explanation is incomplete. Vocal characteristics also differentiated, partly as a result of natural and sexual selection independent of beak size change in environments with different sound transmitting properties. An additional element of chance is indicated by a comparison of closely-related populations on two islands, Wolf and Darwin, that are geographically close, and topographically and floristically similar. The populations have markedly different vocalizations. Morphological characters, vocalizations and genetic traits do not vary concordantly among the six populations. One population (Genovesa) is genetically more similar to other congeneric species. Phenotypic similarities with G. difficilis are the result of a uniquely long retention of shared ancestral traits. Arguments under the phylogenetic species concept justify recognizing this population as a separate species, Geospiza acutirostris. Under the biological species concept it should remain as currently classified, G. difficilis. Copyright 2000 The Linnean Society of London

And...
Quote
Speciation and anagenesis in the genus Cyprinella of Mexico (Teleostei: Cyprinidae): a case study of Model III allopatric speciation
Wood, Robert M.1 ; Mayden, Richard L.2
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, Volume 12, issue 2-3 (2002), p. 253-271

Allozyme variation at 42 presumptive gene loci is presented for members of the C. formosa species group. This group is corroborated as a monophyletic assemblage whose common ancestor occupied pluvial Lake Palomas of the Guzman Basin. With increasing aridity during the Pleistocene this basin and associated populations of this common ancestor were fragmented into several lineages that diverged independently of one another. The pattern of relationships and levels of anagenetic change observed in independent lineages for this clade are not consistent with expectations of the most common modes of speciation, Model I large-scale vicariance or Model II peripheral isolation. Rather, divergence in these fish lineages is consistent with the rarely observed Model III allopatric speciation. Consistent with predictions of this model, the phylogenetic pattern recovered reveals polychotomous relationships (a hard polytomy) and varied rates of anagenetic change across examined lineages.

And...
Quote
Karyological and genetic variation in Middle Eastern lacertid lizards, Lacerta laevis and the Lacerta kulzeri complex: a case of chromosomal allopatric speciation
in den Bosch, Herman A. J.1; Odierna, Gaetano2 ; Aprea, Gennaro3; Barucca, Marco4; Canapa, Adriana4; Capriglione, Teresa3; Olmo, Ettore4
Chromosome Research, Volume 11, issue 2 (February 2003), p. 165-178

Karyological (standard and C, Ag-NOR and Alu-I banding methods) and mtDNA analyses (cytochrome b and 12S rRNA) were conducted on specimens from eight allopatric populations of the Lacerta kulzeri complex. Parallel analyses were performed for comparison on Lacerta laevis specimens. Karyological and molecular studies support the morphological and ethological evidence indicating the specific separation between Lacerta laevis and Lacerta kulzeri
In the Lacerta kulzeri complex, chromosomal analysis substantiated an interpopulation differentiation roughly along a north–south trend, mainly regarding the sex chromosome morphology and heterochromatin.The cytochrome b and 12S rRNA gene analyses showed minor genetic differences that were considerably smaller than those commonly found in genetically isolated populations. The L. kulzeri populations from Barouk, Druze and Hermon show a mean genetic distance that, in other saurians, characterises subspecies.
The conditions found in L. laevis and L. kulzeri are reminiscent of King’s model of chromosomal primary allopatry and support the hypothesis that in these lacertid lizards chromosome variations can become fixed before the accumulation of the genetic mutations.

And...
Quote
The evolution of host preference in allopatric vs. parapatric populations of Timema cristinae walking-sticks
NOSIL, P.1; SANDOVAL, C. P.2; CRESPI, B. J.1
Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Volume 19, issue 3 (May 2006), p. 929-942

Divergent habitat preferences can contribute to speciation, as has been observed for host-plant preferences in phytophagous insects. Geographic variation in host preference can provide insight into the causes of preference evolution. For example, selection against maladaptive host-switching occurs only when multiple hosts are available in the local environment and can result in greater divergence in regions with multiple vs. a single host. Conversely, costs of finding a suitable host can select for preference even in populations using a single host. Some populations of Timema cristinae occur in regions with only one host-plant species present (in allopatry, surrounded by unsuitable hosts) whereas others occur in regions with two host-plant species adjacent to one another (in parapatry). Here, we use host choice and reciprocal-rearing experiments to document genetic divergence in host preference among 33 populations of T. cristinae. Populations feeding on Ceanothus exhibited a stronger preference for Ceanothus than did populations feeding on Adenostoma. Both allopatric and parapatric pairs of populations using the different hosts exhibited divergent host preferences, but the degree of divergence tended to be greater between allopatric pairs. Thus, gene flow between parapatric populations apparently constrains divergence. Host preferences led to levels of premating isolation between populations using alternate hosts that were comparable in magnitude to previously documented premating isolation caused by natural and sexual selection against migrants between hosts. Our findings demonstrate how gene flow and different forms of selection interact to determine the magnitude of reproductive isolation observed in nature.

And...
Quote
RECENT, ALLOPATRIC, HOMOPLOID HYBRID SPECIATION: THE ORIGIN OF SENECIO SQUALIDUS (ASTERACEAE) IN THE BRITISH ISLES FROM A HYBRID ZONE ON MOUNT ETNA, SICILY
James, Juliet K.1; Abbott, Richard J.2
Evolution, Volume 59, issue 12 (December 1, 2005), p. 2533-2547

Homoploid hybrid speciation occurs through stabilization of a hybrid segregate (or segregates) isolated by premating and/or postmating barriers from parent taxa. Theory predicts that ecological and spatial isolation are of critical importance during homoploid hybrid speciation, and all confirmed homoploid hybrid species are ecologically isolated from their parents. Until recently, such species have been identified long after they originated, and consequently it has not been possible to determine the relative importance of spatial and ecological isolation during their origin. Here we present evidence for the recent origin (within the past 300 years) of a new homoploid hybrid species, Senecio squalidus (Asteraceae), in the British Isles, following long-distance dispersal of hybrid material from a hybrid zone between S. aethnensis and S. chrysanthemifolius on Mount Etna, Sicily, Italy. Historical records show that such hybrid material from Sicily was introduced to the Oxford Botanic Garden in Britain in the early part of the 18th century and that S. squalidus began to spread from there after approximately 90 years. A survey of randomly amplified polymorphic DNA/intersimple sequence repeats (RAPD/ISSR) marker variation demonstrated that S. squalidus is a diploid hybrid derivative of S. aethnensis and S. chrysanthemifolius that grow at high and low altitudes, respectively, on Mount Etna and that form a hybrid zone at intermediate altitudes. Senecio squalidus contained 11 of 13 RAPD/ISSR markers that were recorded at high frequency in S. chrysanthemifolius but were absent or occurred at low frequency in S. aethnensis, and 10 of 13 markers for which the reverse was true. Bayesian admixture analysis showed that all individuals of S. squalidus surveyed were of mixed ancestry with relatively high mean proportions of ancestry derived from both S. chrysanthemifolius and S. aethnensis (0.644 and 0.356, respectively). We argue that long-distance isolation of hybrid material from its parents on Mount Etna would have helped favor the origin and establishment of S. squalid

And...

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,08:22   

Quote
I think you may have found your calling Quack.  Perhaps you should be the one to finally prove that Jesus never existed!  (Good luck with that BTW).

That would be just as hard as it would be (or rather, is) for you to disprove evolution.

I could be flippant and dismiss the subject with  “Don’t have to, it’s already been done” but I’ll be modest and just say that while there is a tremendous amount of evidence for evolution, there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus. Not even the Turin shroud is evidence for that.

One may say it possible that Jesus existed - but that also means saying it is possible that evolution is true.

We don't want no double standards, do we?

I've already acknowledged the power of mankind's symbol(s); to learn more about that I suppose it might be helpful reading Ernst Cassirer; he is often referred to as the originator of the term "The Symbol Animal".

Given the religious-political climate around Jerusalem 2000 years ago there may well have been many Messiah characters and other religious crackpots around at the time; scriptures provided a rich foundation for that.

I have not been able to find en English or German version so I make an attempt at translation from the back cover of my version of Schweitzer’s Gesichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung:

         
Quote
The Jesus of Nazareth that acted as Messiah, propagated the morals of the Kingdom of God, founded heaven on Earth and then died to fulfil his mission, has never existed.


This may be from the same book, he wrote many:

         
Quote
The study of the Life of Jesus has had a curious history. It set out in quest of the historical Jesus, believing that when it had found Him it could bring Him straight into our time as a Teacher and Saviour. ...
But He does not stay; He passes by our time and returns to His own. ...
He returned to His own time, not owing to the application of any historical ingenuity, but by the same inevitable necessity by which the liberated pendulum returns to its original position. ... Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows
through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity.


I see no reason to believe that this ‘spiritual force’ depends on the eventual historicity of Jesus.

As a lover of extensive quotes you may appreciate this one, from “Christendom or Psychology” by Arne Duve, (Oslo 1966), a book that I’ve translated to English (somewhat roughly, being difficult to translate for a number of reasons, more or less for personal use,):

(Whether one agrees with it or not - it really is very interesting, I believe it is worth reading!) As far as I can tell, Arne Duve is the first to note the fascinating parallel between the characters Joseph and Jesus. I believe it was because of his profound knowledge of the human psyche, man's symbols - and scripture as well as relevant literature. His profession was Child Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis in the Depth Psychology tradition, more like Jungian than Freudian as far as I can tell.)

QUOTE:
 The other Messiah-concept in particular related to the Northern kingdom, was the expectation of the Anointed as the Son of Joseph – Messiah ben Joseph – a concept that soon disappeared from official Judaism *)

But just this version must have found its way into Christendom, possibly via some mystery sect. It is worth noting that Jesus is said to stem from the heathen Galilee – from the Northern kingdom.
 Many parallels can be found between the legend of Joseph and the life of Jesus – traits that are too numerous for them to be just a coincidence.

*

Jesus had 12 apostles, and later the 70 disciples were sent out – something that goes back to the cosmic heroes of the Zodiac, the tribes of Israel, the “elders” of the nation, and the number of peoples. When Judah falls away, Matthias is first chosen in his place – later, Paul arrives as the 13th. Jacob’s sons counted 12. When Jacob went to Egypt with all his house, there were 70 souls altogether. Joseph’s two sons, Manasse and Ephraim become included among the brothers.  When Joseph dies, the number becomes 13. Also here, two are added to the original number – and the sum is the same, 13.  
 Joseph was an interpreter of dreams – of symbols – One-who-reveals—secrets as he also was called. Jesus often spoke in parables and images that he translated and interpreted. Both had insight into the world of symbols.
And they became themselves symbols.

*

Joseph was sold for 20 shekel of silver – as suggested by Judah. Jesus was betrayed by Judas – the Greek form of Judah – for 30 pieces of gold. The different numbers probably are significant for succeeding steps of development. Joseph and his work is in the domain of the soul and the material world – corn was his means of liberation. Jesus and his world are at the spiritual level. Thought – spirit – has become conscious road to salvation and decisive reality. This is underscored also by Jesus, according to legend, being placed in a manger. Corn – the plant – is replaced by Man.

__
*) See: Das alte Testament in Licht des alten Orients by Alfred Jeremias, Leipzig 1930.

Joseph was thrown in the empty well that became the entrance to glorification. Jesus was placed in an empty crypt at Calvary, the name of the roof of the skull covering the brain. Jesus and his lore therefore lie entirely on the level of spirit. Man’s consciousness and soul have become alpha and omega.
*
Both Jesus’ birth and death are connected with the name of Joseph, since the crypt belonged to a Joseph of Aramitea, Joseph and his father both went to Egypt – as did also Jesus and his father. This heavy emphasis on the Nile-country expresses a unity between Judaism, Christendom, Egyptian mystery religion and the monotheism that had its origins in Egypt. We may remember that Joseph was married to the daughter of the high priest in the city of the Sun – Heliopolis –On.

*

Joseph was preferred before his brothers by his father. Among other things, he was given a royal robe. Jesus for his part stood in a particular and loving son-relationship with his heavenly father. Also the robe of Jesus was particular. It was without seams – woven as one piece – the symbol of spiritual coherence and unity of the soul. The robe of Jesus did not look like the emperor's – his kingdom was not of this world.
*

Joseph went obediently to his brothers in Sikem, even if he knew the dangers – a parallel to Jesus trip to Jerusalem. For both of them, blood was used as evidence for their death; Joseph’s bloody, torn robe was shown to his father. And blood and water flooded out of the wound of the Saviour.
*

In Reuben’s speech of defence one may recognize Pilate. Ruben, as the oldest of the brothers should have been in command in the same way as Pilate had command over Jesus – as representative of the Roman Empire.
*
Joseph resisted the temptations of Potifar’s wife – a theme being the main motif of a very popular and widely read Egyptian story.

Nor Jesus did not fall when tempted by the devil. But it may be noted that the temptation facing Jesus was of an entirely different character – spiritual values were at stake.

*

Both Joseph and Jesus were imprisoned and accused of crimes of which they were innocent. The one was imprisoned for 3 years; the other spent 3 days – a number probably related to the cycles of the moon. It takes 3 days from the smallest no to the newest new. In the prison, Joseph met pharaoh’s cupbearer and baker. One was released to freedom; the other killed and hung on a tree. We recognize the two bandits on the cross – one would be going to paradise. That the cupbearer was to survive must be because he represented wine – the spiritual principle. In earlier times it was thought that there was a spirit – spiritus – that cause the particular effect.
  On the other hand, the baker symbolise the material – corn must perish. Further development would continue with the great successor to Joseph.

*
Both Joseph and Jesus begin their work at 30, probably as an expression of maturity. For both of them, debasement and suffering became the starting point and the road to glory. Joseph also was called Zofnat- Paneah, - the World’s saviour, a title also applied to Jesus. The two saviours both were thought to be dead. But death was not real – it was of a symbolic nature. “Death” was a necessary prerequisite for the ensuing glory.

*
Joseph was of a forgiving nature; he did not repay his brothers evil. It was also the principle of Jesus to break the power of evil by meeting it with love and understanding.
Joseph’s identity was long held hidden from the brothers until he gave himself away to them. It also lasted long before Jesus revealed to them his identity – as Messiah.

*

There is in the legend of Joseph also an element of a consciously arranged accusation – leading to “arrest” – “trial” – and clarification with a consolidation of the house of Jacob with joy – a parallel to what took place at Jesus’ death. We refer to the account of how a silver beaker was placed in the bag of one of the brothers at his departure from Egypt.
The travelling party was apprehended – ransacked  - the whole party was returned – with the ensuing result.

*
Dr. Hugh Schonfield – well known Jewish historian- who also have written the books “The Jew of Tarsus – a Life of Paul” – “Saints against Caesar” – “The authentic new Testament” (Schonfields own translation of the new testament) – “The Secrets of the Dead Sea Scroll” and “The Bible was right” , shortly before Christmas 1965 threw a lighted torch in the religious debate with the book “The Passover Plot” – or “The Easter Plot”.
Schoenfeld has ever since his younger days and throughout a long career as researcher been occupied with Jesus and his relationship with the religious and social conditions in Palestine at the beginning of the current era.
Sconfield makes the supposition that Jesus, being from “heathen land”, Galilee was a person deeply and seriously worried about the salvation of his people from fall and destruction. The land was occupied by the Romans who ruled with iron, blood and crucifying.
He studied the religious scriptures very thoroughly, and by and by, he came to the conclusion that he was the Messiah intended to save his people. He knew all that had been predicted about him in holy scripture and therefore could proceed according to that.
Schonfield is of the opinion that Jesus – who also had learned from the Essenes and other sects, - particularly the Nasarenes, - made a carefully prepared plan for action – to culminate in death on the cross – which he intended to survive according to a careful thought out plan – of which incidentally the apostles were not informed so that he had to rely on helpers outside of apostolic circles.

The plan was carefully made such that Jesus calculated that court proceedings and crucifying would be executed in a way that would ensure he would hang on the cross only for a few hours- because the next day would be Sabbath. The law required the bodies to be removed by then.
This execution method was preferred by the Romans, and it was not by itself fatal. Death came after a prolonged time because of pain, exhaustion, thirst and hunger. It all went according to plan. Schonfield assumes that Jesus by a helper was given some kind of anaesthetic from the sponge that he was given, so that it would seem like he was dead. The story tells that shortly thereafter, he gave up his spirit.
After having been taken down, he should be taken care of by his helpers - so that he might survive. In this manner Jesus thought that the prophecies would be fulfilled – they do not say that the Messiah necessarily should die – but that he should be spared death.
But the plan failed on an important and unforeseen point. A Roman soldier not being convinced that Jesus was dead, pierced his side with a lance – and his life could not be saved.
Schonfield seems strangely enough not to have been aware of the parallels between Jesus and the Legend of Joseph, - but the moment of the fake accusation seems to support the supposition about a connection – perhaps the way Schonfield suggests.
The clear parallel between these two saviour-characters that nobody before seems to have been aware of – becomes clearer with the continued study of the Dead Sea scrolls. The British scientist John Allegro, lecturer in the Old Testament at the University of Manchester and member of the 8-man team working on the translation of the scrolls, in January 1966 made a statement that the study of the scrolls may lead to the conclusion that for instance the apostles are not historical persons – but rather mythological characters signifying among other things positions of office in the sect of the Essenes – for instance the one entrusted with the handling of money.
Judas is in John XIII, 29 described as the one carrying “the purse”, i.e. the keeper of the money. In Aramaic, this is “ish sacariob” – the name Iskariot is easily recognizable.
There now seems to be sufficient grounds for the view that the gospels also are a framework around the central secrets of existence with the Jesus-figure and the Christ-impulse at the centre.
As a curiosum, it may be mentioned that in 1883, an exhibit of three ancient parchment scrolls found in a cave by the Dead Sea, was shown in the British Museum. The find was however considered a forgery, and nobody knows what happened to these scrolls.

*

All the common elements that I have mentioned show that traits from the legend of Joseph must have been used in creating the mythical framework around Jesus. They share too much in common that it may be just coincidental.
The symbols of the latter version are to some extent been applied in a new manner in another setting – another aspect. Evolution has progressed to a new level, with emphasis shifted from the body-soul sector to man as a spiritual being. Corn therefore no longer serves as the means of salvation. The mission of the character of Joseph has come to an end. The new saviour of the world should work on the level of mentality.
A discontinuity in time had arrived, when man should realize himself as a being of spirit.
The cupbearer – representative of the spirit  - shall satisfy the possibilities of man – therefore he was given free. One character has retained his function quite unchanged, namely Juda – Judas, the one who sets suffering in motion – the prerequisite for realization, liberation and the new life. In this respect, man can hardly be expected to change. The greed for money – materialism – even then it resulted in suffering.

What is the status of the project of release of man’s possibilities as a thinking being? For the time being, it looks bleak. But the situation is difficult, even impossible to judge for us who live in the final phases of a cultural cycle.
The world is in the melting pot and writhes in pain – a new way of life is in the process of being created. The reason why development have been sidetracked to where it is today, have been caused, as repeatedly mentioned before not lest the dominance from the natural sciences, causing the building of culture to skew. We all may think we understand the utility of them (the natural sciences), the practical consequences can be felt and seen. The funding authorities may get immediate and profitable results from their investments. And last, but not least: Science only to a small degree clash with morals, way of life and cultural pattern – in contrast to the laws governing mans psychic dynamics and development. Even the smallest sign of breach of conventions, accepted views and personal symptomatics are met with fierce resistance of formidable dimensions.
The victory of the natural sciences was a given when the church had nothing to counter with, except for religious dogma and letters that had been made alpha and omega in the religious life. Under this banner, religion was condemned to lose. Evolution most likely would have been different if the Church had upheld the ancient’s insight into the dynamics of the soul and its connection with the inner aspect of religion. The Church instead – due to its lack of spiritual power – had to resort to fire and burning as long as that worked.
If the Church had retained the inner truths about man, it might have said: It is all to the good with science and research, in all fields. The more we can learn, the better it is. But it is the truth about man’s inner reality that alone is of importance and by which everything else needs to be judged.
But this, the Church could not do – because it had no inner coverage for it’s use of symbols and imagery-speech. And the results were inevitable.
UNQUOTE.

That was just scratching the surface...

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,08:38   

Don't anybody worry; I am going to stand back and let science rule but I just had to get it off my chest...

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,08:48   

Lets review.

I asked Daniel,
   
Quote
Do you agree that if speciation in the mode argued by Mayr (allopatric speciation originating in the geographic isolation of populations, culminating in reproductive isolation and therefore speciation) has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community, your argument has been refuted?"

He responded "no," then cited three objections to Mayr's model raised by Schindewolf.

In short, I asked Daniel IF the scientific demonstration of the reality of allopatric speciation would refute his argument. He responded by disputing that such as been demonstrated. Therefore Daniel's reply was NOT responsive to the premise of my question.

Daniel, here is my question again:

Do you agree that IF speciation in the mode argued by Mayr had been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community, your argument has been refuted?

I'm not asking whether you believe it HAS been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community. I am asking WERE it so demonstrated, would your argument be refuted?

Of course, Schindwolf's "valid" objections don't carry the force you think they do, as I have shown above. But that is another question.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,10:38   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 07 2009,06:48)
Lets review.

I asked Daniel,
       
Quote
Do you agree that if speciation in the mode argued by Mayr (allopatric speciation originating in the geographic isolation of populations, culminating in reproductive isolation and therefore speciation) has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community, your argument has been refuted?"

He responded "no," then cited three objections to Mayr's model raised by Schindewolf.

In short, I asked Daniel IF the scientific demonstration of the reality of allopatric speciation would refute his argument. He responded by disputing that such as been demonstrated. Therefore Daniel's reply was NOT responsive to the premise of my question.

Daniel, here is my question again:

Do you agree that IF speciation in the mode argued by Mayr had been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community, your argument has been refuted?

I'm not asking whether you believe it HAS been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community. I am asking WERE it so demonstrated, would your argument be refuted?

Of course, Schindwolf's "valid" objections don't carry the force you think they do, as I have shown above. But that is another question.

I understood the question Bill.  I also know that "speciation" (as Mayr defined it) has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community.

Your question was whether or not that refuted my original argument - which has to do with the evolution of the E. coli amino acid biosynthetic pathway.

My answer was (and still is) "No".

If you are countering my specific argument, you need to show how such a finding, A) applies to an asexual organism, (E. coli) and, B) applies to the evolutionary production of the current amino acid biosynthetic pathway.

If you are countering my general argument (that science cannot account for the specific steps leading up to any existing organizationally complex biological system), you need to show how a specific system has been A) built or B) modified in such a way that it represents a significant change in a fundamental biological system.  

Since we're talking about direct study of living organisms, I'm sure you'll be able to demonstrate "modified" easily enough.  The question then becomes - "How much can a system be modified without doing irreparable harm?".  IOW, can evolution (of the type you're describing) actually account for the step by step production of any fundamental biosystem?

Do you believe you've demonstrated that it can?

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,10:48   

...um yeah whateva.

Daniel nobody realy gives a fuck what you think, these guys are just gratifying themselves.

You do get that don't you?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,12:08   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 07 2009,10:38)
 IOW, can evolution (of the type you're describing) actually account for the step by step production of any fundamental biosystem?

Do you believe you've demonstrated that it can?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's teapot
 
Quote
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.


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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,12:11   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 07 2009,10:38)
If you are countering my general argument (that science cannot account for the specific steps leading up to any existing organizationally complex biological system), you need to show how a specific system has been A) built or B) modified in such a way that it represents a significant change in a fundamental biological system.

 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 09 2008,18:24)
I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it.  My main reason for believing it (other than the bible), is that the landscape looks like the aftermath of massive flood runoff when viewed from the air.  


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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,13:51   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 07 2009,11:38)

I understood the question Bill.  I also know that "speciation" (as Mayr defined it) has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community.

Your question was whether or not that refuted my original argument - which has to do with the evolution of the E. coli amino acid biosynthetic pathway.

My answer was (and still is) "No".

I'm not asking about your E. coli mulberry bush. Perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been. Here is a summary of the context of my question, followed by a restatement of the intent of my question.

You noted two prongs of your argument, one theological and one scientific. The theological is based on your personal experiences with Jesus and admittedly irrelevant to science. I wished you luck with your theological musings. The scientific you claimed was well presented by Schindewolf, Goldschmidt and other saltationists.
   
Quote
The part of "my theory", as you call it, (I don't really have a theory), dealing with saltational evolution is quite adequately elucidated and defended by those scientists I've alluded to over and over and over in my posts here.

With respect to the scientific prong of your argument, I asserted that the views of the authors you cite are obsolete:
   
Quote
Obsolete and ultimately unsupported scientific hypotheses may be of interest to historians of same, as well as to present day crackpot science denialists, but I haven't the time for that.

I am interested in current living science, not discarded and misappropriated dead ends, however scientific their original motivations.

You asked how I could make such shocking assertions without having read your dusty champions, characterized me as having a closed mind, and regarded me as a smaller person. All so sad:
   
Quote
How would you know any of that without reading these scientists' works for yourself Bill?

Don't pre-judge what you know nothing about.  It might make points here, but overall it makes you a smaller person.

You admire Gould for his open-mindedness, yet act the opposite. Sad.

I urged you not to be sad. I stated that I take my cues from credible scientific sources, such as Gould and Mayr, not theologically motivated science deniers such as yourself. I quoted Mayr at length from The Growth of Biological Thought, in which he noted that saltational thinking was retired decades ago in response to the refutation supplied by population thinking, particularly the role of factors such as geographic allopatry in speciation. Later I repeated,
   
Quote
Mayr's insight that species are are best conceptualized as interbreeding (or potentially interbreeding) populations (the biological species concept), and that speciation is initiated by geographic and eventually reproductive isolation (among other mechanisms), refuted the claim that saltation is required for speciation, and restored selection acting upon mutation as a sufficient mechanism (along with some others that have nothing to do with the hopeful monster that is your position on this question) when understood in conjunction with these population and geographic factors.

That was 60 years ago. It seems to be news to you.

You insinuated that Mayr's population views have no empirical support:
   
Quote
It doesn't "refute" anything if it cannot be demonstrated Bill.  (Is that "news" to you?)

NOW you say that speciation in that mode HAS been demonstrated, at least to the satisfaction of scientific consensus:
   
Quote
I also know that "speciation" (as Mayr defined it) has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community.

I'll let you wrestle with how those two notions peacefully coexist in your brainpan.

Now to clarify my question, in light of the foregoing:

You said, "[Mayr] doesn't 'refute' anything if it cannot be demonstrated." I am asking, conversely, if it CAN be demonstrated, does that not refute the scientific prong of your theory, as indicated above?

More pointedly:

Given that population thinking vis speciation (e.g. allopatric speciation) obviated the need for saltation in the mode of Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, etc., and given that saltation has been regarded for decades as having decisively refuted by population arguments, does not the reality of speciation in Mayr's allopatric mode (about which you know there is a scientific consensus) refute the "scientific" prong of your "theory"?

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,13:57   

Maybe I should start a new thread for Daniel, where he can show me at least why he believes that the topology of the Earth is supported by a global flood and not local floods.

I am most interested in his criteria for making those pronouncements.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,14:17   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 07 2009,10:38)
I understood the question Bill.  I also know that "speciation" (as Mayr defined it) has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community.

Your question was whether or not that refuted my original argument - which has to do with the evolution of the E. coli amino acid biosynthetic pathway.

My answer was (and still is) "No".

 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Dec. 19 2008,19:20)
The detailed account doesn't have to satisfy ME.  It has to settle the question for the experts in the field.


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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,14:23   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 29 2009,18:49)
What we're talking about here are flexible genetic programs loaded into a number of proto-organisms by an omniscient being.  It stands to reason that such a being could streamline such genomes to the bare essentials and utilize genome duplication, chromosome rearrangement and other information multiplying mechanisms - as well as error correction techniques - to bring about whatever changes are necessary to keep a balanced ecosystem on this planet.

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 07 2009,10:38)
Since we're talking about direct study of living organisms, I'm sure you'll be able to demonstrate "modified" easily enough.  The question then becomes - "How much can a system be modified without doing irreparable harm?".  IOW, can evolution (of the type you're describing) actually account for the step by step production of any fundamental biosystem?


--------------
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: Mar. 07 2009,16:40   

ahh a mealy mouth.  

get out of here, Tribolium!!!

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

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,16:40   

Oldman, I get the impression from your recent postings of back-to-back contradictory statements by Daniel Smith that he contradicts himself.  Often.  Repeatedly.

Do you think he appreciates the cognitive repair service you're providing?

Probably not.  It would take an effort of will.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,16:43   

Quote
Yes Daniel explain to us how Kangaroos made it onto the ARK?


They hopped of course.

Good grief, does that really have to be explained?

Henry

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 07 2009,17:11   

Quote (mitschlag @ Mar. 07 2009,16:40)
Oldman, I get the impression from your recent postings of back-to-back contradictory statements by Daniel Smith that he contradicts himself.  Often.  Repeatedly.

Do you think he appreciates the cognitive repair service you're providing?

Probably not.  It would take an effort of will.

This is a cognitive and willful act by Daniel.  Just like his heroes of the ID/YEC movements.  They willfully and consciously lie and changed their stories to make it fit their predetermined outcome.

Daniel already knows that the Bible is true and 100% errant, despite his protests to the contrary.  He has no reason do close his eye, stuff cotton in his ears and yell as loud as he can, "You're wrong.  You have nothing.  I can't see anything in the so called evidence you provided".

How 'bout it Daniel, want to do some geology?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2009,11:01   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 07 2009,11:51)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 07 2009,11:38)

I understood the question Bill.  I also know that "speciation" (as Mayr defined it) has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community.

Your question was whether or not that refuted my original argument - which has to do with the evolution of the E. coli amino acid biosynthetic pathway.

My answer was (and still is) "No".

I'm not asking about your E. coli mulberry bush. Perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been. Here is a summary of the context of my question, followed by a restatement of the intent of my question.

You noted two prongs of your argument, one theological and one scientific. The theological is based on your personal experiences with Jesus and admittedly irrelevant to science. I wished you luck with your theological musings. The scientific you claimed was well presented by Schindewolf, Goldschmidt and other saltationists.
           
Quote
The part of "my theory", as you call it, (I don't really have a theory), dealing with saltational evolution is quite adequately elucidated and defended by those scientists I've alluded to over and over and over in my posts here.

With respect to the scientific prong of your argument, I asserted that the views of the authors you cite are obsolete:
           
Quote
Obsolete and ultimately unsupported scientific hypotheses may be of interest to historians of same, as well as to present day crackpot science denialists, but I haven't the time for that.

I am interested in current living science, not discarded and misappropriated dead ends, however scientific their original motivations.

You asked how I could make such shocking assertions without having read your dusty champions, characterized me as having a closed mind, and regarded me as a smaller person. All so sad:
           
Quote
How would you know any of that without reading these scientists' works for yourself Bill?

Don't pre-judge what you know nothing about.  It might make points here, but overall it makes you a smaller person.

You admire Gould for his open-mindedness, yet act the opposite. Sad.

I urged you not to be sad. I stated that I take my cues from credible scientific sources, such as Gould and Mayr, not theologically motivated science deniers such as yourself. I quoted Mayr at length from The Growth of Biological Thought, in which he noted that saltational thinking was retired decades ago in response to the refutation supplied by population thinking, particularly the role of factors such as geographic allopatry in speciation. Later I repeated,
           
Quote
Mayr's insight that species are are best conceptualized as interbreeding (or potentially interbreeding) populations (the biological species concept), and that speciation is initiated by geographic and eventually reproductive isolation (among other mechanisms), refuted the claim that saltation is required for speciation, and restored selection acting upon mutation as a sufficient mechanism (along with some others that have nothing to do with the hopeful monster that is your position on this question) when understood in conjunction with these population and geographic factors.

That was 60 years ago. It seems to be news to you.

You insinuated that Mayr's population views have no empirical support:
           
Quote
It doesn't "refute" anything if it cannot be demonstrated Bill.  (Is that "news" to you?)

NOW you say that speciation in that mode HAS been demonstrated, at least to the satisfaction of scientific consensus:
           
Quote
I also know that "speciation" (as Mayr defined it) has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the scientific community.

I'll let you wrestle with how those two notions peacefully coexist in your brainpan.

Now to clarify my question, in light of the foregoing:

You said, "[Mayr] doesn't 'refute' anything if it cannot be demonstrated." I am asking, conversely, if it CAN be demonstrated, does that not refute the scientific prong of your theory, as indicated above?

More pointedly:

Given that population thinking vis speciation (e.g. allopatric speciation) obviated the need for saltation in the mode of Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, etc., and given that saltation has been regarded for decades as having decisively refuted by population arguments, does not the reality of speciation in Mayr's allopatric mode (about which you know there is a scientific consensus) refute the "scientific" prong of your "theory"?

Your strawman characterization of the conversation doesn't accurately reflect what happened, so I'll help with your attempt at reconstruction.  Here is the context in which my "cannot be demonstrated" quote was issued (start with the bolded question please):      
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,17:37)
       
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 02 2009,17:10)
           
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 02 2009,19:09)
                 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 01 2009,18:10)
                         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 01 2009,17:23)
Are you conceding then that no current biological system can be explained by the "sheer accumulation of micro-mutations"?

By your 'snippage' and lack of response to that question, I'm thinking you already know you've lost that argument.

I'm saying that half your argument is based on personal experiences and theological longings (you freely admit that above), the rest on obsolete science (also established above vis your heros Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, etc.) buttressed by idiosyncratic, unsupported speculations about future findings (which you report ad nauseam above). If that causes you to swell with a sense of victory, I'd wager you also own a stack of sticky magazines.

I'll take that as a "Yes".

Mayr's insight that species are are best conceptualized as interbreeding (or potentially interbreeding) populations (the biological species concept), and that speciation is initiated by geographic and eventually reproductive isolation (among other mechanisms), refuted the claim that saltation is required for speciation, and restored selection acting upon mutation as a sufficient mechanism (along with some others that have nothing to do with the hopeful monster that is your position on this question) when understood in conjunction with these population and geographic factors.

That was 60 years ago. It seems to be news to you.

It doesn't "refute" anything if it cannot be demonstrated Bill.  (Is that "news" to you?)


As you can see Bill, the "cannot be demonstrated" comment was not in reference to speciation.  My responses in that exchange were all in regard to the bolded question (which you have since - as per usual - snipped and ignored).  You brought up the topic of speciation in order to change the subject and get the conversation into more familiar territory as part of your continued avoidance of my question: Are you conceding then that no current biological system can be explained by the "sheer accumulation of micro-mutations"?

If I were to rephrase the question now to include the "demonstrated" part, it would look like this:  What current biological system can be demonstrated to have evolved by the sheer accumulation of micromutations?

You know Bill, perhaps if you quit snipping the parts of the conversation that are uncomfortable for you, you won't be so inclined to mischaracterize conversations in the future.  Just a thought.

--------------
"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: Mar. 08 2009,11:35   

Quote (mitschlag @ Mar. 07 2009,14:40)
Oldman, I get the impression from your recent postings of back-to-back contradictory statements by Daniel Smith that he contradicts himself.  Often.  Repeatedly.

Do you think he appreciates the cognitive repair service you're providing?

Probably not.  It would take an effort of will.

I don't read his posts.

He's a troll.

I'm guessing he's bringing up the flood and the age of the earth (again).  Go back and read the context from which he repeatedly wrests those quotes and you'll see what his snippage left out.

If I remember the flood conversation correctly, I talked about the fact that when I looked down at the topology of the earth from an airplane, it looked a lot like the results of water runoff.  I was basing this observation solely on what I saw water do to dirt when I was a kid playing with a hose in the yard and in the gutter (I grew up in a neighborhood with lots of new construction).  I quickly realized that since A) that was my sole empirical support for my views, and B) I was not interested in opening up a line of discussion for which I was unprepared, that C) I should drop the subject and continue with the topic at hand (which was supposed to be Berg and Schindewolf).

The age of the earth comments were made in the context that saltational theories of evolution do not require long time frames.  I said I had no opinion as to the actual age of the earth and, again because I had not prepared myself for such a debate and didn't want to be sidetracked, I tried to drop the subject.

That's it.  That's all there is to those two issues.  Now oldman is only interested in discrediting me.  That's all he does.  I can see him now salivating over the next quote ripped from it's context:    
Quote
oldman -  Daniel's method of scientific discovery:  
Quote
I was basing this observation solely on what I saw water do to dirt when I was a kid playing with a hose in the yard and in the gutter
 
I've tried carrying on a conversation with him and it's like talking to a rock so, no, I won't be appreciative of the "cognitive repair service" you think he's providing.

--------------
"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: Mar. 08 2009,12:00   

Quote (subkumquat @ Mar. 06 2009,19:01)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 06 2009,20:56)
Could you cite a few specific examples of enzymes that multi-task please?

Thank you.

Macrophomate synthase immediately springs to mind.

Macrophomate synthase is a multitasking enzyme for sure (Thanks for that).  There is something else interesting about it though:
 
Quote
The uniqueness of this transformation led us to investigate details of the biosynthetic pathway. The enzymatic activity was induced in the presence of the 2-pyrone 1 and detected in the cell-extract (7). Subsequently, the unidentified precursor required in the enzymatic transformation has been determined as oxalacetate (8, 9). This finding allowed us to purify the enzyme named macrophomate synthase (8, 9). Macrophomate synthase is a homodimer of 36-kDa protein and shows a unique substrate selectivity to convert various 2-pyrones to benzoates (10). The single enzyme catalyzes an extraordinary five-step transformation involving two decarboxylations, two C-C bond formations and dehydration. To our knowledge, there is no precedent example of an enzyme catalyzing different types of multistep chemical reactions except dehydroquinate synthase (11) and mechanistically related deoxy-scyllo-inosose synthase (12, 13). The cDNA encoding macrophomate synthase from M. commelinae has recently been cloned and overexpressed in Escherichia coli (9). Sequence alignments show that it has no homology to known enzymes reported to date.
link

Searches on Google Scholar for "evolution of macrophomate synthase" and "macrophomate synthase evolution" returned no results.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2009,12:22   

hahaha

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2009,12:29   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 08 2009,12:01)
Here is the context in which my "cannot be demonstrated" quote was issued (start with the bolded question please):

Let me get this straight. I said, in part,
 
Quote
Mayr's insight...refuted the claim that saltation is required for speciation...

That was 60 years ago. It seems to be news to you.

Your next reply to me was,
 
Quote
It doesn't "refute" anything if it cannot be demonstrated Bill.  

(Is that "news" to you?)

And now you are claiming that "cannot be demonstrated" did not refer to Mayr.

Well fuck me.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2009,12:38   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 08 2009,12:00)
Macrophomate synthase is a multitasking enzyme for sure (Thanks for that).  

Daniel seems to have sauntered off without addressing the multi-tasking enzymes I pointed him toward in my earlier comment.

Imagine that. Do you suppose that there is something in one of those examples that did not fit with his presuppositional conclusion?
 
Quote
Elimination of competing hydrolysis and coupling side reactions of a cyclodextrin glucanotransferase by directed evolution.

Ronan M. KELLY*†, Hans LEEMHUIS*†, Henriëtte J. ROZEBOOM‡, Niels van OOSTERWIJK‡, Bauke W. DIJKSTRA‡ and Lubbert DIJKHUIZEN*†1

*Microbial Physiology, Groningen Biomolecular Sciences and Biotechnology Institute, University of Groningen, Kerklaan 30, 9751 NN Haren, The Netherlands, †Centre for Carbohydrate Bioprocessing, TNO-University of Groningen, Kerklaan 30, 9751 NN Haren, The Netherlands, and ‡Laboratory of Biophysical Chemistry, Groningen Biomolecular Sciences and Biotechnology Institute, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands

Thermoanaerobacterium thermosulfurigenes cyclodextrin glucanotransferase primarily catalyses the formation of cyclic ?-(1,4)-linked oligosaccharides (cyclodextrins) from starch. This enzyme also possesses unusually high hydrolytic activity as a side reaction, thought to be due to partial retention of ancestral enzyme function. This side reaction is undesirable, since it produces short saccharides that are responsible for the breakdown of the cyclodextrins formed, thus limiting the yield of cyclodextrins produced. To reduce the competing hydrolysis reaction, while maintaining the cyclization activity, we applied directed evolution, introducing random mutations throughout the cgt gene by error-prone PCR. Mutations in two residues, Ser-77 and Trp-239, on the outer region of the active site, lowered the hydrolytic activity up to 15-fold with retention of cyclization activity. In contrast, mutations within the active site could not lower hydrolytic rates, indicating an evolutionary optimized role for cyclodextrin formation by residues within this region. The crystal structure of the most effective mutant, S77P, showed no alterations to the peptide backbone. However, subtle conformational changes to the side chains of active-site residues had occurred, which may explain the increased cyclization/hydrolysis ratio. This indicates that secondary effects of mutations located on the outer regions of the catalytic site are required to lower the rates of competing side reactions, while maintaining the primary catalytic function. Subsequent functional analysis of various glucanotransferases from the superfamily of glycoside hydrolases also suggests a gradual evolutionary progression of these enzymes from a common ‘intermediate-like’ ancestor towards specific transglycosylation activity.


Hmm. A naturally occurring (presumably intelligently designed) enzyme has an undesirable side-reaction, probably derived from an ancestral enzyme. Human designers are able to reduce the level of this side-reaction by modifying (randomly!) the protein sequence, thus improving on the enzyme that Daniel's God generated.  Oh, the horror!

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2009,13:06   

Quote
I don't read his posts.

He's a troll.


BWAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA

--------------
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: Mar. 08 2009,13:08   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 08 2009,11:35)
I'm guessing he's bringing up the flood and the age of the earth (again).  Go back and read the context from which he repeatedly wrests those quotes and you'll see what his snippage left out.

Yes, lets do that.
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 09 2008,18:24)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 09 2008,05:15)
Hey Daniel,
Seeing as things have taken a turn for the off-topic, perhaps you could answer a few simple questions that'll allow the lurkers to decide if you are sincere?

a) How old is the earth?
b) How old is the solar system?
c) How old is the universe?

I don't know.  I haven't really studied both sides of the whole "age of the earth" debate, so I'm not prepared to give an answer on those.
         
Quote
d) Did man and dinosaur share the planet at the same time?

It's possible, but again I don't know.
         
Quote
e) Did every human but 8 die in a global flood?

I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it.  My main reason for believing it (other than the bible), is that the landscape looks like the aftermath of massive flood runoff when viewed from the air.  Not very scientific, I know but that's where I'm at.  (insert joke here)
         
Quote
f) Does the "designer" actively "interfere" with the day to day running of the universe?
g) If "yes" to f) then how come we've not noticed?

Again it's possible, although it is equally possible that he planned everything out in advance, and it is just unfolding accordingly.
I definitely don't have all the answers and my opinions are in a constant state of flux.

 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 10 2008,10:47)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 09 2008,18:36)
     
Quote
I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it.  My main reason for believing it (other than the bible), is that the landscape looks like the aftermath of massive flood runoff when viewed from the air.  Not very scientific, I know but that's where I'm at.  (insert joke here)
 


Are you kidding?  Where in the hell does it look like that?

That isn't even worth making a joke about.  You need some help dude.

Next time you're up in an airplane -- look down.

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 12 2008,14:16)
I'll just say this and be done with it:
I'm perfectly content with a 4.5 billion year old earth, and I wouldn't cry if it turned out to be only 10,000 years old either.  IOW, it's not really an issue for me.

It's not how old things are; it's their chronological order that matters.


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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2009,13:09   

Daniel, do you still think it's possible that man and dino lived at the same time?

Or is that something you've now "studied" in sufficient detail to be able to come to a determination on?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2009,13:16   



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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2009,14:03   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 08 2009,12:01)
As you can see Bill, the "cannot be demonstrated" comment was not in reference to speciation.  My responses in that exchange were all in regard to the bolded question (which you have since - as per usual - snipped and ignored).  You brought up the topic of speciation in order to change the subject and get the conversation into more familiar territory as part of your continued avoidance of my question: Are you conceding then that no current biological system can be explained by the "sheer accumulation of micro-mutations"?

Your chronology is not accurate, and your recollection of your own question is faulty.

I brought up and extensively quoted Mayr on page 7 of this thread. The passage I quoted described the dilemma regarding SPECIATION that motivated Goldschmidt, de Vries, etc., as well as Mayr's solution to that problem and his report that well-argued defenses of saltation subsequently disappeared from the literature.

Your observation/challenge regarding "micro mutations" ("I don't think you realize how outdated the idea of SPECIATION via the 'sheer accumulation of micro mutations' is" and "Are you conceding then that no current biological system can be explained by the "sheer accumulation of micro-mutations"?) appeared on page 8 and page 9, two days later. You'll notice that the first appearance of your question in this recent discussion, the observation you accused me of ignoring via "snippage," REFERS TO SPECIATION.

The cherry on the cake? YOU drew the phrase "micro mutations" from a quote of Goldschmidt discussing SPECIATION: "The decisive leap in evolution, the first step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method [that is, the origin of hopeful monsters] than that of sheer accumulation of micro mutations." (As quoted in Mayr).

So, somehow, I changed the subject to evade your question two days before you asked it, and I changed the subject to address speciation, with which I am more comfortable, rather than address myself to your original devastating observation vis micromutations and FUCKING SPECIATION.

You are a special sort of idiot, Daniel.

Your observation/challenge itself, in the context of my already ongoing discussion of Mayr, was so badly formed and such a non-sequitur that I chose to ignore it (straightening out the twisty little passages, all alike, of your faulty reasoning isn't really that much fun), although my response in that context is already implicit in what I have written to date.

With respect to the origins of new biological species (the topic at hand at the time), it was the very models of speciation introduced by Mayr and others, models that include a definition of species in terms of reproductive populations and that address the impact of phenomena such as allopatry, reinforcement, genetic drift, sympatry, etc., that rendered obsolete the naive view expressed in your observation ("I don't think you realize how outdated the idea of SPECIATION via the 'sheer accumulation of micro mutations' is").  

[Edit for correct page numbers, to place the cherry on the cake, and to substitute Goldschmidt and de Vries for Schindewolf vis the Mayr quote.]

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 08 2009,19:54   

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 07 2009,08:38)
Don't anybody worry; I am going to stand back and let science rule but I just had to get it off my chest...

I won't ask for more, but I've heard similar, even one suggestion of a Joshua/sun deity religion that was subsumed into Judiasm and perhaps Christianity.  Interesting stuff, but, as you say, the hard part is to see any of it translated into English.  You did give me some more avenues of research.  Just wanted to say thanks for that.

Now, back to the train wreck.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,08:25   

Once again Daniel:[QUOTE=Daniel]I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it.  My main reason for believing it (other than the bible), is that the landscape looks like the aftermath of massive flood runoff when viewed from the air.  Not very scientific, I know but that's where I'm at.  (insert joke here)[/QUOTE]I too have flown over the land.  What I've seen is a very diverse and varied landscape.

You have high, jagged mountains out west, lowering rolling mounts in the east, flat rolling plains in the middle, dry and arid land in the south west so tell me again how does that equal a world wide flood?

What evidence do you have for a world wide flood.  Again, you can't prove a negative.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,09:23   

For Pete's sakes, anybody who says they haven't seen evidence against the Noachian flood is woefully uninformed.  Or something...

Time for Daniel to get cracking on those geology books.

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,09:34   

So I doubt our sophist friend will jump on Duh Flud.  Let's hope so.

More "systems", Denial.


Proc. R. Soc. B (2006) 273, 2453–2459
Quote
Diluting the founder effect: cryptic invasions
expand a marine invader’s range

Joe Roman*
Department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street,
Cambridge, MA 02138, USA


Most invasion histories include an estimated arrival time, followed by range expansion. Yet, such linear
progression may not tell the entire story. The European green crab (Carcinus maenas) was first recorded in
the US in 1817, followed by an episodic expansion of range to the north. Its population has recently
exploded in the Canadian Maritimes. Although it has been suggested that this northern expansion is the
result of warming sea temperatures or cold-water adaptation, Canadian populations have higher genetic
diversity than southern populations, indicating that multiple introductions have occurred in the Maritimes
since the 1980s. These new genetic lineages, probably from the northern end of the green crab’s native
range in Europe, persist in areas that were once thought to be too cold for the original southern invasion
front. It is well established that ballast water can contain a wide array of nonindigenous species. Ballast
discharge can also deliver genetic variation on a level comparable to that of native populations. Such gene
flow not only increases the likelihood of persistence of invasive species, but it can also rapidly expand the
range of long-established nonindigenous species.
Keywords: Carcinus maenas; cline; cryptic invasion; mitochondrial DNA; planktonic dispersal


Ah yes but where did mitochondria come from?  snicker

Ecology, 90(1), 2009, pp. 208–217
Quote

Invasive fire ants alter behavior and morphology
of native lizards
TRACY LANGKILDE
Department of Biology, Pennsylvania State University, 417 Mueller Laboratory, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802 USA


Abstract. Nonnative species introductions are becoming more common, but long-term
consequences of the novel pressures imposed by invaders on native species remain poorly
known. The red imported fire ant, Solenopsis invicta, is an invasive species with potential
global impact. Comparison of lizards across the invasive range within the United States reveals novel antipredator strategies and altered morphologies that mitigate potentially lethal attack by these ants, within 70 years of their introduction. The likelihood that adult lizards will behaviorally respond to fire ant attack increases with time since invasion, but hatchlings exhibit high levels of antipredator behavior irrespective of their site of origin. Adults and hatchlings from sites invaded longer ago also have relatively longer hind limbs. This trait increases the effectiveness of behavioral strategies for removing ants  and is likely an adaptive response to minimize  envenomation during attack. The observed changes are not correlated with habitat, exposure to fire ants, or latitude, arguing against phenotypic plasticity and learning as causal mechanisms, and museum specimens show that morphological differences were not evident prior to fire ant invasion. These data contribute to our growing awareness
that ecological invasions can prompt adaptive responses, altering the nature of interactions between invaders and the natives they contact.


yeah well they are still just ants, right?  call me when one turns into a duck

Quote
Comparisons through time and space suggest rapid evolution of dispersal behaviour in an invasive species

Author(s): Alford RA (Alford, Ross A.)2, Brown GP (Brown, Gregory P.)1, Schwarzkopf L (Schwarzkopf, Lin)2, Phillips BL (Phillips, Benjamin L.)1, Shine R (Shine, Richard)1
Source: WILDLIFE RESEARCH    Volume: 36    Issue: 1    Pages: 23-28    Published: 2009  

Abstract: During a biological invasion, we expect that the expanding front will increasingly become dominated by individuals with better dispersal abilities. Over many generations, selection at the invasion front thus will favour traits that increase dispersal rates. As a result of this process, cane toads (Bufo marinus) are now spreading through tropical Australia about 5-fold faster than in the early years of toad invasion; but how have toads changed to make this happen? Here we present data from radio-tracking of free-ranging cane toads from three populations (spanning a 15-year period of the toads' Australian invasion, and across 1800 km). Our data reveal dramatic shifts in behavioural traits (proportion of nights when toads move from their existing retreat-site to a new one, and distance between those successive retreat-sites) associated with the rapid acceleration of toad invasion. Over a maximum period of 70 years (similar to 50 generations), cane toads at the invasion front in Australia apparently have evolved such that populations include a higher proportion of individuals that make long, straight moves.


Insert "cane toads" at "ants".  Re-tard at will.

Quote
An invasive species induces rapid adaptive change in a native predator: cane toads and black snakes in Australia


Author(s): Phillips BL, Shine R
Source: PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES    Volume: 273    Issue: 1593    Pages: 1545-1550    Published: JUN 22 2006  
   
Abstract: Rapid environmental change due to human activities has increased rates of extinction, but some species may be able to adapt rapidly enough to deal with such changes. Our studies of feeding behaviour and physiological resistance to toxins reveal surprisingly rapid adaptive responses in Australian black snakes (Pseudechis porphyriacus) following the invasion of a lethally toxic prey item, the cane toad (Bufo marinus). Snakes from toad-exposed localities showed increased resistance to toad toxin and a decreased preference for toads as prey. Separate laboratory experiments suggest that these changes are not attributable to learning (we were unable to teach naive snakes to avoid toxic prey) or to acquired resistance (repeated sublethal doses did not enhance resistance). These results strongly suggest that black snake behaviour and physiology have evolved in response to the presence of toads, and have done so rapidly. Toads were brought to Australia in 1935, so these evolved responses have occurred in fewer than 23 snake generations.


Denial, the jig is up.  Find a new set of talking points.  May I suggest taking Frank up on his line of questioning?

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,15:48   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 08 2009,10:29)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 08 2009,12:01)
Here is the context in which my "cannot be demonstrated" quote was issued (start with the bolded question please):

Let me get this straight. I said, in part,
     
Quote
Mayr's insight...refuted the claim that saltation is required for speciation...

That was 60 years ago. It seems to be news to you.

Your next reply to me was,
     
Quote
It doesn't "refute" anything if it cannot be demonstrated Bill.  

(Is that "news" to you?)

And now you are claiming that "cannot be demonstrated" did not refer to Mayr.

Well fuck me.

Nice snippage.  Your infusion of "speciation" into the argument was a dodge of my original question (which you again snipped and avoided).  So yes Bill, my "demonstrated" comment was in reference to your inferred claim that the "sheer accumulation of micromutations" was enough to "refute" and "destroy" saltational theories of evolution.  I can't help it if you attempted to change the subject.

I'll again ask you:
What current biological system can be explained by the sheer accumulation of micromutations?

(I'm guessing another 'snip and ignore' response will be forthcoming.)

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,16:06   

daniel what exactly do you mean by "biological system"?

I for one would love to see this clarified.  I don't think you can do it.

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

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

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

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,16:11   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 08 2009,10:38)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 08 2009,12:00)
Macrophomate synthase is a multitasking enzyme for sure (Thanks for that).  

Daniel seems to have sauntered off without addressing the multi-tasking enzymes I pointed him toward in my earlier comment.

Imagine that. Do you suppose that there is something in one of those examples that did not fit with his presuppositional conclusion?
       
Quote
Elimination of competing hydrolysis and coupling side reactions of a cyclodextrin glucanotransferase by directed evolution.

Ronan M. KELLY*†, Hans LEEMHUIS*†, Henriëtte J. ROZEBOOM‡, Niels van OOSTERWIJK‡, Bauke W. DIJKSTRA‡ and Lubbert DIJKHUIZEN*†1

*Microbial Physiology, Groningen Biomolecular Sciences and Biotechnology Institute, University of Groningen, Kerklaan 30, 9751 NN Haren, The Netherlands, †Centre for Carbohydrate Bioprocessing, TNO-University of Groningen, Kerklaan 30, 9751 NN Haren, The Netherlands, and ‡Laboratory of Biophysical Chemistry, Groningen Biomolecular Sciences and Biotechnology Institute, University of Groningen, Nijenborgh 4, 9747 AG Groningen, The Netherlands

Thermoanaerobacterium thermosulfurigenes cyclodextrin glucanotransferase primarily catalyses the formation of cyclic ?-(1,4)-linked oligosaccharides (cyclodextrins) from starch. This enzyme also possesses unusually high hydrolytic activity as a side reaction, thought to be due to partial retention of ancestral enzyme function. This side reaction is undesirable, since it produces short saccharides that are responsible for the breakdown of the cyclodextrins formed, thus limiting the yield of cyclodextrins produced. To reduce the competing hydrolysis reaction, while maintaining the cyclization activity, we applied directed evolution, introducing random mutations throughout the cgt gene by error-prone PCR. Mutations in two residues, Ser-77 and Trp-239, on the outer region of the active site, lowered the hydrolytic activity up to 15-fold with retention of cyclization activity. In contrast, mutations within the active site could not lower hydrolytic rates, indicating an evolutionary optimized role for cyclodextrin formation by residues within this region. The crystal structure of the most effective mutant, S77P, showed no alterations to the peptide backbone. However, subtle conformational changes to the side chains of active-site residues had occurred, which may explain the increased cyclization/hydrolysis ratio. This indicates that secondary effects of mutations located on the outer regions of the catalytic site are required to lower the rates of competing side reactions, while maintaining the primary catalytic function. Subsequent functional analysis of various glucanotransferases from the superfamily of glycoside hydrolases also suggests a gradual evolutionary progression of these enzymes from a common ‘intermediate-like’ ancestor towards specific transglycosylation activity.


Hmm. A naturally occurring (presumably intelligently designed) enzyme has an undesirable side-reaction, probably derived from an ancestral enzyme. Human designers are able to reduce the level of this side-reaction by modifying (randomly!) the protein sequence, thus improving on the enzyme that Daniel's God generated.  Oh, the horror!

I did read that Albatrossity.  I also read the other article you linked to.

I must remind you that I've never stated that God's designs were immutable.  In fact I've stated on more than one occasion that they were designed to evolve.

In the case you quote from, I can only assume that the "undesirable" side reaction produces no ill effects for the organism and that the part of the enzyme that is "optimized" is the important part.  I'll also remind you that "thought to be" and "suggests" are not terms used in response to overwhelming evidence but rather to clues that may or may not lead to such a conclusion when more evidence is found.

Do they mix their mutated bacteria with the originals in a natural setting to see how well they compete?

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,16:13   

Quote
daniel what exactly do you mean by "biological system"?

I for one would love to see this clarified.  I don't think you can do it.


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

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

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

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,16:32   

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 07 2009,06:22)
   
Quote
I think you may have found your calling Quack.  Perhaps you should be the one to finally prove that Jesus never existed!  (Good luck with that BTW).

That would be just as hard as it would be (or rather, is) for you to disprove evolution.

I could be flippant and dismiss the subject with  “Don’t have to, it’s already been done” but I’ll be modest and just say that while there is a tremendous amount of evidence for evolution, there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus. Not even the Turin shroud is evidence for that.

One may say it possible that Jesus existed - but that also means saying it is possible that evolution is true.

We don't want no double standards, do we?

I've already acknowledged the power of mankind's symbol(s); to learn more about that I suppose it might be helpful reading Ernst Cassirer; he is often referred to as the originator of the term "The Symbol Animal".

Given the religious-political climate around Jerusalem 2000 years ago there may well have been many Messiah characters and other religious crackpots around at the time; scriptures provided a rich foundation for that.

I have not been able to find en English or German version so I make an attempt at translation from the back cover of my version of Schweitzer’s Gesichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung:

             
Quote
The Jesus of Nazareth that acted as Messiah, propagated the morals of the Kingdom of God, founded heaven on Earth and then died to fulfil his mission, has never existed.


This may be from the same book, he wrote many:

             
Quote
The study of the Life of Jesus has had a curious history. It set out in quest of the historical Jesus, believing that when it had found Him it could bring Him straight into our time as a Teacher and Saviour. ...
But He does not stay; He passes by our time and returns to His own. ...
He returned to His own time, not owing to the application of any historical ingenuity, but by the same inevitable necessity by which the liberated pendulum returns to its original position. ... Jesus means something to our world because a mighty spiritual force streams forth from Him and flows
through our time also. This fact can neither be shaken nor confirmed by any historical discovery. It is the solid foundation of Christianity.


I see no reason to believe that this ‘spiritual force’ depends on the eventual historicity of Jesus.

As a lover of extensive quotes you may appreciate this one, from “Christendom or Psychology” by Arne Duve, (Oslo 1966), a book that I’ve translated to English (somewhat roughly, being difficult to translate for a number of reasons, more or less for personal use,):

(Whether one agrees with it or not - it really is very interesting, I believe it is worth reading!) As far as I can tell, Arne Duve is the first to note the fascinating parallel between the characters Joseph and Jesus. I believe it was because of his profound knowledge of the human psyche, man's symbols - and scripture as well as relevant literature. His profession was Child Psychiatry and Psychoanalysis in the Depth Psychology tradition, more like Jungian than Freudian as far as I can tell.)

QUOTE:
 The other Messiah-concept in particular related to the Northern kingdom, was the expectation of the Anointed as the Son of Joseph – Messiah ben Joseph – a concept that soon disappeared from official Judaism *)

But just this version must have found its way into Christendom, possibly via some mystery sect. It is worth noting that Jesus is said to stem from the heathen Galilee – from the Northern kingdom.
 Many parallels can be found between the legend of Joseph and the life of Jesus – traits that are too numerous for them to be just a coincidence.

*

Jesus had 12 apostles, and later the 70 disciples were sent out – something that goes back to the cosmic heroes of the Zodiac, the tribes of Israel, the “elders” of the nation, and the number of peoples. When Judah falls away, Matthias is first chosen in his place – later, Paul arrives as the 13th. Jacob’s sons counted 12. When Jacob went to Egypt with all his house, there were 70 souls altogether. Joseph’s two sons, Manasse and Ephraim become included among the brothers.  When Joseph dies, the number becomes 13. Also here, two are added to the original number – and the sum is the same, 13.  
 Joseph was an interpreter of dreams – of symbols – One-who-reveals—secrets as he also was called. Jesus often spoke in parables and images that he translated and interpreted. Both had insight into the world of symbols.
And they became themselves symbols.

*

Joseph was sold for 20 shekel of silver – as suggested by Judah. Jesus was betrayed by Judas – the Greek form of Judah – for 30 pieces of gold. The different numbers probably are significant for succeeding steps of development. Joseph and his work is in the domain of the soul and the material world – corn was his means of liberation. Jesus and his world are at the spiritual level. Thought – spirit – has become conscious road to salvation and decisive reality. This is underscored also by Jesus, according to legend, being placed in a manger. Corn – the plant – is replaced by Man.

__
*) See: Das alte Testament in Licht des alten Orients by Alfred Jeremias, Leipzig 1930.

Joseph was thrown in the empty well that became the entrance to glorification. Jesus was placed in an empty crypt at Calvary, the name of the roof of the skull covering the brain. Jesus and his lore therefore lie entirely on the level of spirit. Man’s consciousness and soul have become alpha and omega.
*
Both Jesus’ birth and death are connected with the name of Joseph, since the crypt belonged to a Joseph of Aramitea, Joseph and his father both went to Egypt – as did also Jesus and his father. This heavy emphasis on the Nile-country expresses a unity between Judaism, Christendom, Egyptian mystery religion and the monotheism that had its origins in Egypt. We may remember that Joseph was married to the daughter of the high priest in the city of the Sun – Heliopolis –On.

*

Joseph was preferred before his brothers by his father. Among other things, he was given a royal robe. Jesus for his part stood in a particular and loving son-relationship with his heavenly father. Also the robe of Jesus was particular. It was without seams – woven as one piece – the symbol of spiritual coherence and unity of the soul. The robe of Jesus did not look like the emperor's – his kingdom was not of this world.
*

Joseph went obediently to his brothers in Sikem, even if he knew the dangers – a parallel to Jesus trip to Jerusalem. For both of them, blood was used as evidence for their death; Joseph’s bloody, torn robe was shown to his father. And blood and water flooded out of the wound of the Saviour.
*

In Reuben’s speech of defence one may recognize Pilate. Ruben, as the oldest of the brothers should have been in command in the same way as Pilate had command over Jesus – as representative of the Roman Empire.
*
Joseph resisted the temptations of Potifar’s wife – a theme being the main motif of a very popular and widely read Egyptian story.

Nor Jesus did not fall when tempted by the devil. But it may be noted that the temptation facing Jesus was of an entirely different character – spiritual values were at stake.

*

Both Joseph and Jesus were imprisoned and accused of crimes of which they were innocent. The one was imprisoned for 3 years; the other spent 3 days – a number probably related to the cycles of the moon. It takes 3 days from the smallest no to the newest new. In the prison, Joseph met pharaoh’s cupbearer and baker. One was released to freedom; the other killed and hung on a tree. We recognize the two bandits on the cross – one would be going to paradise. That the cupbearer was to survive must be because he represented wine – the spiritual principle. In earlier times it was thought that there was a spirit – spiritus – that cause the particular effect.
  On the other hand, the baker symbolise the material – corn must perish. Further development would continue with the great successor to Joseph.

*
Both Joseph and Jesus begin their work at 30, probably as an expression of maturity. For both of them, debasement and suffering became the starting point and the road to glory. Joseph also was called Zofnat- Paneah, - the World’s saviour, a title also applied to Jesus. The two saviours both were thought to be dead. But death was not real – it was of a symbolic nature. “Death” was a necessary prerequisite for the ensuing glory.

*
Joseph was of a forgiving nature; he did not repay his brothers evil. It was also the principle of Jesus to break the power of evil by meeting it with love and understanding.
Joseph’s identity was long held hidden from the brothers until he gave himself away to them. It also lasted long before Jesus revealed to them his identity – as Messiah.

*

There is in the legend of Joseph also an element of a consciously arranged accusation – leading to “arrest” – “trial” – and clarification with a consolidation of the house of Jacob with joy – a parallel to what took place at Jesus’ death. We refer to the account of how a silver beaker was placed in the bag of one of the brothers at his departure from Egypt.
The travelling party was apprehended – ransacked  - the whole party was returned – with the ensuing result.

*
Dr. Hugh Schonfield – well known Jewish historian- who also have written the books “The Jew of Tarsus – a Life of Paul” – “Saints against Caesar” – “The authentic new Testament” (Schonfields own translation of the new testament) – “The Secrets of the Dead Sea Scroll” and “The Bible was right” , shortly before Christmas 1965 threw a lighted torch in the religious debate with the book “The Passover Plot” – or “The Easter Plot”.
Schoenfeld has ever since his younger days and throughout a long career as researcher been occupied with Jesus and his relationship with the religious and social conditions in Palestine at the beginning of the current era.
Sconfield makes the supposition that Jesus, being from “heathen land”, Galilee was a person deeply and seriously worried about the salvation of his people from fall and destruction. The land was occupied by the Romans who ruled with iron, blood and crucifying.
He studied the religious scriptures very thoroughly, and by and by, he came to the conclusion that he was the Messiah intended to save his people. He knew all that had been predicted about him in holy scripture and therefore could proceed according to that.
Schonfield is of the opinion that Jesus – who also had learned from the Essenes and other sects, - particularly the Nasarenes, - made a carefully prepared plan for action – to culminate in death on the cross – which he intended to survive according to a careful thought out plan – of which incidentally the apostles were not informed so that he had to rely on helpers outside of apostolic circles.

The plan was carefully made such that Jesus calculated that court proceedings and crucifying would be executed in a way that would ensure he would hang on the cross only for a few hours- because the next day would be Sabbath. The law required the bodies to be removed by then.
This execution method was preferred by the Romans, and it was not by itself fatal. Death came after a prolonged time because of pain, exhaustion, thirst and hunger. It all went according to plan. Schonfield assumes that Jesus by a helper was given some kind of anaesthetic from the sponge that he was given, so that it would seem like he was dead. The story tells that shortly thereafter, he gave up his spirit.
After having been taken down, he should be taken care of by his helpers - so that he might survive. In this manner Jesus thought that the prophecies would be fulfilled – they do not say that the Messiah necessarily should die – but that he should be spared death.
But the plan failed on an important and unforeseen point. A Roman soldier not being convinced that Jesus was dead, pierced his side with a lance – and his life could not be saved.
Schonfield seems strangely enough not to have been aware of the parallels between Jesus and the Legend of Joseph, - but the moment of the fake accusation seems to support the supposition about a connection – perhaps the way Schonfield suggests.
The clear parallel between these two saviour-characters that nobody before seems to have been aware of – becomes clearer with the continued study of the Dead Sea scrolls. The British scientist John Allegro, lecturer in the Old Testament at the University of Manchester and member of the 8-man team working on the translation of the scrolls, in January 1966 made a statement that the study of the scrolls may lead to the conclusion that for instance the apostles are not historical persons – but rather mythological characters signifying among other things positions of office in the sect of the Essenes – for instance the one entrusted with the handling of money.
Judas is in John XIII, 29 described as the one carrying “the purse”, i.e. the keeper of the money. In Aramaic, this is “ish sacariob” – the name Iskariot is easily recognizable.
There now seems to be sufficient grounds for the view that the gospels also are a framework around the central secrets of existence with the Jesus-figure and the Christ-impulse at the centre.
As a curiosum, it may be mentioned that in 1883, an exhibit of three ancient parchment scrolls found in a cave by the Dead Sea, was shown in the British Museum. The find was however considered a forgery, and nobody knows what happened to these scrolls.

*

All the common elements that I have mentioned show that traits from the legend of Joseph must have been used in creating the mythical framework around Jesus. They share too much in common that it may be just coincidental.
The symbols of the latter version are to some extent been applied in a new manner in another setting – another aspect. Evolution has progressed to a new level, with emphasis shifted from the body-soul sector to man as a spiritual being. Corn therefore no longer serves as the means of salvation. The mission of the character of Joseph has come to an end. The new saviour of the world should work on the level of mentality.
A discontinuity in time had arrived, when man should realize himself as a being of spirit.
The cupbearer – representative of the spirit  - shall satisfy the possibilities of man – therefore he was given free. One character has retained his function quite unchanged, namely Juda – Judas, the one who sets suffering in motion – the prerequisite for realization, liberation and the new life. In this respect, man can hardly be expected to change. The greed for money – materialism – even then it resulted in suffering.

What is the status of the project of release of man’s possibilities as a thinking being? For the time being, it looks bleak. But the situation is difficult, even impossible to judge for us who live in the final phases of a cultural cycle.
The world is in the melting pot and writhes in pain – a new way of life is in the process of being created. The reason why development have been sidetracked to where it is today, have been caused, as repeatedly mentioned before not lest the dominance from the natural sciences, causing the building of culture to skew. We all may think we understand the utility of them (the natural sciences), the practical consequences can be felt and seen. The funding authorities may get immediate and profitable results from their investments. And last, but not least: Science only to a small degree clash with morals, way of life and cultural pattern – in contrast to the laws governing mans psychic dynamics and development. Even the smallest sign of breach of conventions, accepted views and personal symptomatics are met with fierce resistance of formidable dimensions.
The victory of the natural sciences was a given when the church had nothing to counter with, except for religious dogma and letters that had been made alpha and omega in the religious life. Under this banner, religion was condemned to lose. Evolution most likely would have been different if the Church had upheld the ancient’s insight into the dynamics of the soul and its connection with the inner aspect of religion. The Church instead – due to its lack of spiritual power – had to resort to fire and burning as long as that worked.
If the Church had retained the inner truths about man, it might have said: It is all to the good with science and research, in all fields. The more we can learn, the better it is. But it is the truth about man’s inner reality that alone is of importance and by which everything else needs to be judged.
But this, the Church could not do – because it had no inner coverage for it’s use of symbols and imagery-speech. And the results were inevitable.
UNQUOTE.

That was just scratching the surface...

Your assertion that "there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus" is only true if one ignores the ancient documents (both biblical and apocryphal) which state otherwise.  I've been told that there is more written evidence for Jesus than for any other historic figure (I've never seen the actual numbers though so that could be hooey).

I also find it interesting that you go from that bold pronouncement to an account of an historical Jesus by Dr. Hugh Schonfield.  So which is it - no evidence for the existence of Jesus?  Or evidence that can be interpreted differently than the orthodox tradition?  

As for the parallels between Christ and Joseph:  There are also parallels with many other old testament figures (Joshua, Moses, Abraham, Isaac to name a few).  Most well-read Christians are aware of these.  If Jesus was a made up symbol, that would certainly be a clue.  If, however, he was an historic person who really said and did the things attributed to him, these parallels would be very hard to explain.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,16:34   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 09 2009,16:11)
Do they mix their mutated bacteria with the originals in a natural setting to see how well they compete?

"natural setting"

Please expand upon that.

And why do you ask? Are you trying to make a case for organisms being perfect before "the fall" and only degenerating since?

--------------
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: Mar. 09 2009,16:43   

Quote
Your assertion that "there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus" is only true if one ignores the ancient documents (both biblical and apocryphal) which state otherwise.  I've been told that there is more written evidence for Jesus than for any other historic figure (I've never seen the actual numbers though so that could be hooey).


Yeah I am sure you have been told that.

lol

I have seen a great deal written about Abraham Lincoln, however.  I think your source is as you say, hooey.

Of course, Denial, we are looking for contemporary accounts.  Not some junk written by Ray Comfort or Lee Strobel.

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,16:51   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 09 2009,14:13)
 
Quote
daniel what exactly do you mean by "biological system"?

I for one would love to see this clarified.  I don't think you can do it.

I think I've already defined this somewhere in the past, but I can do it again.

From the wiki definition of "system" as it would apply to an organism's parts:

A set of interacting or interdependent organic parts within an organism forming an integrated whole.  These parts have functional as well as structural relationships between each other and together can do what none of them can do separately, their function involves inputs, processing and outputs of material, information or energy.

(subject to further refinement)

--------------
"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: Mar. 09 2009,17:13   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 08 2009,12:03)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 08 2009,12:01)
As you can see Bill, the "cannot be demonstrated" comment was not in reference to speciation.  My responses in that exchange were all in regard to the bolded question (which you have since - as per usual - snipped and ignored).  You brought up the topic of speciation in order to change the subject and get the conversation into more familiar territory as part of your continued avoidance of my question: Are you conceding then that no current biological system can be explained by the "sheer accumulation of micro-mutations"?

Your chronology is not accurate, and your recollection of your own question is faulty.

I brought up and extensively quoted Mayr on page 7 of this thread. The passage I quoted described the dilemma regarding SPECIATION that motivated Goldschmidt, de Vries, etc., as well as Mayr's solution to that problem and his report that well-argued defenses of saltation subsequently disappeared from the literature.

Your observation/challenge regarding "micro mutations" ("I don't think you realize how outdated the idea of SPECIATION via the 'sheer accumulation of micro mutations' is" and "Are you conceding then that no current biological system can be explained by the "sheer accumulation of micro-mutations"?) appeared on page 8 and page 9, two days later. You'll notice that the first appearance of your question in this recent discussion, the observation you accused me of ignoring via "snippage," REFERS TO SPECIATION.

The cherry on the cake? YOU drew the phrase "micro mutations" from a quote of Goldschmidt discussing SPECIATION: "The decisive leap in evolution, the first step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method [that is, the origin of hopeful monsters] than that of sheer accumulation of micro mutations." (As quoted in Mayr).

So, somehow, I changed the subject to evade your question two days before you asked it, and I changed the subject to address speciation, with which I am more comfortable, rather than address myself to your original devastating observation vis micromutations and FUCKING SPECIATION.

You are a special sort of idiot, Daniel.

Your observation/challenge itself, in the context of my already ongoing discussion of Mayr, was so badly formed and such a non-sequitur that I chose to ignore it (straightening out the twisty little passages, all alike, of your faulty reasoning isn't really that much fun), although my response in that context is already implicit in what I have written to date.

With respect to the origins of new biological species (the topic at hand at the time), it was the very models of speciation introduced by Mayr and others, models that include a definition of species in terms of reproductive populations and that address the impact of phenomena such as allopatry, reinforcement, genetic drift, sympatry, etc., that rendered obsolete the naive view expressed in your observation ("I don't think you realize how outdated the idea of SPECIATION via the 'sheer accumulation of micro mutations' is").  

[Edit for correct page numbers, to place the cherry on the cake, and to substitute Goldschmidt and de Vries for Schindewolf vis the Mayr quote.]

Bill, I see that I did insert the term "speciation" into the debate.  I never intended to do so.  That was a slip.  It also explains why I immediately asked the question about biological systems - not speciation.

I viewed your attempt to insert Mayr's definition of "speciation" into the debate as a dodge.  I now see that I am partly at fault for that.  

I know that "reproductive isolation" can occur through drift in separate populations and I'm not arguing that it cannot.  I still don't see that as applicable to any of my arguments.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,17:20   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 09 2009,17:13)
Bill, I see that I did insert the term "speciation" into the debate.  I never intended to do so.  That was a slip.  It also explains why I immediately asked the question about biological systems - not speciation.

Are you this shoddy at work? I hope not or there are alot of people out there pissed of that their T.V that they took in for repair is STILL BROKEN!

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,17:35   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 09 2009,16:11)

I did read that Albatrossity.  I also read the other article you linked to.

I must remind you that I've never stated that God's designs were immutable.  In fact I've stated on more than one occasion that they were designed to evolve.

Let me remind you that I never said you did state any of that. Keep your strawmen to yourself.

You did, however, seem to take some glee in the statement that another enzyme had no known phylogenetic relationship to any others. So I was commenting on the fact that another multi-tasking enzyme seems to be easily placed in a lineage, and that evolutionary theory seems to easily accommodate those relationships.

 
Quote
In the case you quote from, I can only assume that the "undesirable" side reaction produces no ill effects for the organism and that the part of the enzyme that is "optimized" is the important part.  

I won't "snip" this so that folks can still read it and understand that it has, per usual, absolutely nothing to do with anything relevant to the rest of this conversation. When next you accuse people of ignoring your brilliant ripostes, you might consider that they are not so much brilliant as they are completely irrelevant. People tend to ignore irrelevant. That reminds me that I once swore off responding to you, as you were becoming increasingly irrelevant. Now I remember why I did that...
 
Quote
I'll also remind you that "thought to be" and "suggests" are not terms used in response to overwhelming evidence but rather to clues that may or may not lead to such a conclusion when more evidence is found.


Exactly. These folks are scientists and thus tend to avoid making blanket statements using the words "never", "we will find no evidence", and other absolutes. They would probably also avoid mixing religion with science in a sentence like the one you wrote early in this thread, "..you must make sure that science never reaches anything but atheistic conclusions." In other words, they are honest, and you are not.

Bye.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,17:52   

It's gonna be just me and you Daniel soon, just me and you.

Won't that be just "elegant"?

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,18:54   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 09 2009,18:13)
Bill, I see that I did insert the term "speciation" into the debate.  I never intended to do so.  That was a slip.  It also explains why I immediately asked the question about biological systems - not speciation.

I viewed your attempt to insert Mayr's definition of "speciation" into the debate as a dodge.  I now see that I am partly at fault for that.  

I know that "reproductive isolation" can occur through drift in separate populations and I'm not arguing that it cannot.  I still don't see that as applicable to any of my arguments.

Mayr's view of speciation is directly applicable to your assertion that the "scientific" prong of your (exceptionally weak) positive argument is adequately elucidated and defended by the works of your favorite authors (Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, etc.). These scientists were motivated by dilemmas regarding speciation that Mayr and others substantially solved 60 years ago. The reality of allopatric speciation (which you acknowledge as well established), as well as other mechanisms that go far beyond "the sheer accumulation of micro-mutations" and that have been part of evolutionary theory for decades, completely obviate the need to introduce saltation and corresponding entirely speculative "new" causal mechanisms into evolutionary theory.

I introduced these topics, and particularly the extensive quotation of Mayr, to exemplify the authors I rely upon to guide my limited reading resources and to make exactly those points, in direct response to your false assertion that adequate science supports your view on saltation.

As for your question about the origins of complex biological systems by sole means of micro-mutations, I have already told you I don't intend to circle your mulberry bush, as you have made it amply clear that your prior, theological commitments render you implacably committed to ignore any and all evidence addressing this question, adjusting goal posts as needed.

The only dodge involved is that of which you take ownership: "That was a slip. It also explains why I immediately asked the question about biological systems - not speciation." God, you crack me up.

It seems obvious to me that you are unwilling or unable to address the following question:

Given that population thinking vis speciation (e.g. allopatric speciation) obviated the need for saltation in the mode of Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, etc., and given that saltation has been regarded for decades as having decisively refuted by population arguments, does not the reality of speciation in Mayr's allopatric mode (about which you know there is a scientific consensus) refute the "scientific" prong of your "theory"?

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,18:56   

oh no it won't.  i love t.a.r.d. more than you, OM!!!!  I'LL BE THE LAST

--------------
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: Mar. 09 2009,19:29   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 09 2009,18:56)
oh no it won't.  i love t.a.r.d. more than you, OM!!!!  I'LL BE THE LAST

OK, the three of us then!

Me, you and Daniel, sittin in a tree....


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

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,19:33   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 09 2009,18:56)
oh no it won't.  i love t.a.r.d. more than you, OM!!!!  I'LL BE THE LAST

wait a minute - shouldn't you guys be saying "There can be only one"?

I can see it now...The Tardlander!

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,19:35   

Quote
A set of interacting or interdependent organic parts within an organism forming an integrated whole.  These parts have functional as well as structural relationships between each other and together can do what none of them can do separately, their function involves inputs, processing and outputs of material, information or energy.


since you set the bar at organism, the recently derived caecal valves in lizards provide you with one example, among zillions.  If you don't like that blogger's take perhaps you can find the damn paper yourself.

since speciation is important here, if one defines a species in the way that you have defined system (and there are many folks out there that have an analogous definition) then the acquisition of reproductive isolation per your admission will also suffice.

In short, there is no reason for you to arbitrarily select 'organism' for where you temporarily plant this goalpost.  You could have gone all the way to ecosystem.  Fuck it, try the entire Earth.

Erasmus's Rule of ecology and evolution:    Shit Changes.  It Matters.  Sometimes.

ETA Old Man I am not saying that we won't wind up throttling him and throwing him under a bridge somewhere, I'm just saying this ship is too tardalicious to jump.  RB and Albie take this guy too seriously and therefore get upset when he shows his hand (I don't care what science says).  I on the other hand don't expect too much from him and that keeps me amused.

I do wish, however, that a more serious fundie would come along for them to convert.  This one is not bright enough to understand why he should

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,20:19   

Perhaps we need to re-title this thread in honor of Ras, OM, and Daniel's favorite explanatory principle.



--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,20:26   

Albie I hope you understand that I believe your supreme skills are being wasted on Daniel.  That's all I'm saying.  The fact that you do take Denial seriously shows that you are after all an educator and that you do have an earnest desire to share the exciting knowledge gained from science.

I share that with you.

I also have an earnest desire to point out stupidity wherever I see it.

and that is a great pic.

lol

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,20:31   

Ras, I certainly understood what you were saying; I do take idiots too seriously sometime. But RB is still the champ!

As for the pic, here is one for k.e., from the same site. It's possible that one of these guys actually is k.e., but we'll have to wait for him to fess up. I have no idea what's going on in this pic, but that's probably a good thing too...



--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 09 2009,21:14   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 09 2009,21:31)
Ras, I certainly understood what you were saying; I do take idiots too seriously sometime. But RB is still the champ!

Still the chimp. I like that. Er...

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2009,04:02   

Hooray for the edit button, especially when it works...

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2009,17:29   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 09 2009,21:31)
Ras, I certainly understood what you were saying; I do take idiots too seriously sometime. But RB is still the champ!

As for the pic, here is one for k.e., from the same site. It's possible that one of these guys actually is k.e., but we'll have to wait for him to fess up. I have no idea what's going on in this pic, but that's probably a good thing too...


Um, what, exactly, are those things protruding from their mouths?!

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Rrr



Posts: 146
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2009,18:17   

Gottabe kukumber, as we say in teh Swedishish.
no nevermind.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2009,19:21   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 09 2009,16:54)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 09 2009,18:13)
Bill, I see that I did insert the term "speciation" into the debate.  I never intended to do so.  That was a slip.  It also explains why I immediately asked the question about biological systems - not speciation.

I viewed your attempt to insert Mayr's definition of "speciation" into the debate as a dodge.  I now see that I am partly at fault for that.  

I know that "reproductive isolation" can occur through drift in separate populations and I'm not arguing that it cannot.  I still don't see that as applicable to any of my arguments.

Mayr's view of speciation is directly applicable to your assertion that the "scientific" prong of your (exceptionally weak) positive argument is adequately elucidated and defended by the works of your favorite authors (Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, etc.). These scientists were motivated by dilemmas regarding speciation that Mayr and others substantially solved 60 years ago. The reality of allopatric speciation (which you acknowledge as well established), as well as other mechanisms that go far beyond "the sheer accumulation of micro-mutations" and that have been part of evolutionary theory for decades, completely obviate the need to introduce saltation and corresponding entirely speculative "new" causal mechanisms into evolutionary theory.

I introduced these topics, and particularly the extensive quotation of Mayr, to exemplify the authors I rely upon to guide my limited reading resources and to make exactly those points, in direct response to your false assertion that adequate science supports your view on saltation.

As for your question about the origins of complex biological systems by sole means of micro-mutations, I have already told you I don't intend to circle your mulberry bush, as you have made it amply clear that your prior, theological commitments render you implacably committed to ignore any and all evidence addressing this question, adjusting goal posts as needed.

The only dodge involved is that of which you take ownership: "That was a slip. It also explains why I immediately asked the question about biological systems - not speciation." God, you crack me up.

It seems obvious to me that you are unwilling or unable to address the following question:

Given that population thinking vis speciation (e.g. allopatric speciation) obviated the need for saltation in the mode of Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, etc., and given that saltation has been regarded for decades as having decisively refuted by population arguments, does not the reality of speciation in Mayr's allopatric mode (about which you know there is a scientific consensus) refute the "scientific" prong of your "theory"?

Bill,

I still answer "No" to your question.  Speciation - as defined by Mayr - is an arbitrary line that can be crossed and recrossed.  It was once thought that grizzly and polar bears were reproductively isolated - until it was found that they're not.  I'm sure many other examples of 'unexpected breeding amongst the reproductively isolated' could be cited as well.

I don't see how demonstrable reproductive isolation "solves" the problems with Darwin's theory elucidated by Berg, Schindewolf, Goldschmidt, et. al. either.  If the problem were truly "solved" there'd be evolutionary pathways with all or most of the steps filled in - rather than the as-yet-unknown pathways that bridge most every gap between types.

As for the "other mechanisms that go far beyond "the sheer accumulation of micro-mutations".  I'm aware of them, in fact I've pointed out that they are appealed to more and more as micro-mutations (point mutations) are realized incapable of providing the changes needed in a reasonable fashion.

Case in point:      
Quote
Based on genetic differences between monkeys, apes, and humans, Eichler's group was able to create a picture of how the gene evolved over the past 50 million years. First, the DNA remains of an ancient virus, called an endogenous retrovirus, jumped from somewhere else in the genome into the region directly upstream of the dormant IRGM gene, creating a brand-new promoter. Then, two more mutations removed the remaining stop signs. Together, these three unrelated events restored the gene's function.
link

This all sounds good, but how realistic is it?  

Did this retrovirus jump to its fortuitous new location in one individual or many?  

If one, then how likely is such a change to become fixed in a population given the fact that such a jump would provide no selective advantage until the two stop codons were removed?  

If many, well then that opens up a whole other can of worms.

Likewise, the first stop codon removed would provide no reproductive advantage, so again one needs to ask why it would be retained?  

The fact that point mutations by themselves are incapable of accounting for the changes necessary to provide a new promoter is illustrated by the insertion of a retrovirus.

The modern synthesis relies more and more on pre-packaged, pre-functional genetic insertions to explain complex evolution.  

Hence, the modern synthesis is moving closer to the types of evolution saltationalists have proposed than it is to the type Darwin proposed.

Can you at least acknowledge that Bill?

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2009,19:44   

Quote
Can you at least acknowledge that Bill?


BWHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

Why should he?



Dodging Troll.

Quote
Blah blah blah ...Can of wormz... etc etc etc


Oh yeah.

The ones running around your brain and out your ass eh Danny boy?


What are you hoping for next Dan?

Promotion to Pandas Thumb?

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2009,20:00   

Denial refuses to recognize that speciation (packaging of populations into discrete units) answers his questions about 'one individual or many'.

acknowledge that, suckah.

--------------
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: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2009,20:38   

Daniel Smith:

Quote

The fact that point mutations by themselves are incapable of accounting for the changes necessary to provide a new promoter is illustrated by the insertion of a retrovirus.

The modern synthesis relies more and more on pre-packaged, pre-functional genetic insertions to explain complex evolution.  


Your continuing confusion of what "gradualism" is and what "saltation" is, and how "point mutation" is not the only genetic change that is embraced within gradualism, is simply tedious. Get a clue. Take a course. Read a book. Do something besides repeat your same old confusions.

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

    
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2009,21:33   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 10 2009,20:21)
I still answer "No" to your question.  Speciation - as defined by Mayr - is an arbitrary line that can be crossed and recrossed.  It was once thought that grizzly and polar bears were reproductively isolated - until it was found that they're not.  I'm sure many other examples of 'unexpected breeding amongst the reproductively isolated' could be cited as well.

This is only a problem for those who equate "species" with "essential types" separated by immutable barriers. Your creationist thinking is showing. I suggest you take up baraminology.
     
Quote
If the problem were truly "solved" there'd be evolutionary pathways with all or most of the steps filled in - rather than the as-yet-unknown pathways that bridge most every gap between types.

This response reflects no comprehension of, and is irrelevant to, the dilemma to which Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, et al. were responding, nor of the solution offered by Mayr. I suggest you obtain a copy of The Growth of Biological Thought and take a shot at growing your biological thought.
     
Quote
As for the "other mechanisms that go far beyond "the sheer accumulation of micro-mutations".  I'm aware of them, in fact I've pointed out that they are appealed to more and more as micro-mutations (point mutations) are realized incapable of providing the changes needed in a reasonable fashion.

This was "realized" about the time World War I was on the horizon. Again, your response reflects little comprehension of the dilemma to which your heros were responding, and the solution to that dilemma offered more than 60 years ago.  
   
Quote
Hence, the modern synthesis is moving closer to the types of evolution saltationalists have proposed than it is to the type Darwin proposed.

Can you at least acknowledge that Bill?

Even the your favorite saltationists rejected the sort of teleological saltations to which you are referring. From your own quote of Schindewolf:
     
Quote
The unwary observer could easily form the impression that evolution is purposeful, that right from the beginning it is directed toward a predetermined goal and that the path it follows is determined by the goal.  Such a finalistic explanation, however cannot be seriously supported; there is no basis for it in natural science, and the observed facts do not warrant it in the least.

As true today as the day he wrote it.

When you are done with Mayr, I suggest you pick up a copy of Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. There is a very interesting discussion to be had of the need to revise and extend the modern synthesis (itself more than a half-decade old), a discussion that is further being extended by evo-devo as we speak. You're not having it.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2009,22:39   

Quote
Um, what, exactly, are those things protruding from their mouths?!


Well, the URL of the image does have the word "pickle" in it.

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 10 2009,22:40   

Quote
If one, then how likely is such a change to become fixed in a population given the fact that such a jump would provide no selective advantage until the two stop codons were removed?


Any one particular neutral mutation (point or otherwise) is very unlikely to become fixed.

But there's a couple of things that have to be taken into consideration:

The average number of mutations is one point something for coding genes (i.e., well over a billion for each billion individuals);

With recombination, neither of a pair of mutations has to actually become fixed in order for both to wind up together in one individual.

Henry

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,02:04   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 10 2009,04:31)
Ras, I certainly understood what you were saying; I do take idiots too seriously sometime. But RB is still the champ!

As for the pic, here is one for k.e., from the same site. It's possible that one of these guys actually is k.e., but we'll have to wait for him to fess up. I have no idea what's going on in this pic, but that's probably a good thing too...


If you think that's good, you should see the video I have of a witch doctor I took performing in an oversize full cover long grass mask with huge red eye symbols and grass cloak on the side of the road between Limbe and Douala in Cameroon West Africa on my last trip there in Feb. '09. Very impressive with his staff and animated dancing.
I didn't get the full performance because some kids raced up to the car demanding money and as we took off the witch doctor put a curse on me...which I have on video.
I didn't want to get into protracted fee discussions with him that's for sure considering I may have interrupted his journey to an important appointment for which contractual obligations may have caused him to seek renumeration at my expense.

I don't know what the curse was but we did make it safely all the way back to Douala and I'm still not dead.

As an aside there were very few people I spoke to there who didn't believe traditional witchcraft was effective. All were Christian as well and were quite happy that their traditions were mirrored in Christianity which they viewed as a more powerful form of witchcraft.
One traditional witchdoctor even wrote a book about his conversion from traditional witchcraft to Christianity and the benefits thereof ....mostly money as far as I could see. His book was full of issues to do with fertility and his considerable power over his followers. He claimed while he was a witch doctor he had turned a womans vagina into an elephants ear and a mans penis into the head of a goat. I forget the justification he used for performing this stunt but probably some transgression demanded it.
When I quizzed the young  local man who had given me the book; who was a devout Christian and had a university degree in engineering, about those claims and if they made any sense he was surprised I would even doubt such a claim and strongly defended the writings.

The conversion is quite popular there it would seem, even if some people seem to do a lot better financially out of it than others. The blood of Christ is another popular Christian motif and the blood is mentioned at least as frequently on Cameroon radio as it is on Fundy radio in Texas.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,02:27   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 04 2009,01:22)
Marking concepts in quotes is not attribution.

They were explicitly described as what I said, not concepts. You're just digging yourself in deeper.

But hey, I'll play...how exactly do you do attribution if not by the construct, "...when you say "they have a scientific hypothesis", Wes? I don't see anything conceptual about your attribution there.

Quote
Three points: What exceptions?

The glaring exception of the false hypothesis that Wells advanced in a poster at ASCB a few years ago, Wes. Are you denying that it happened?
Quote
If there are exceptions, what exactly does that mean?

It means that I know of at least one exception, so failing to qualify my statement would be less than honest.
Quote
You are, if nothing else, dangerously ambiguous.

Now that is funny coming from someone who assists creationists in fooling the public into thinking that staged debates are how scientific disputes are decided.
Quote
It looks like you are saying that IDC advocates rarely propose scientific hypotheses -- doesn't that permit the reader to embrace the notion that they've done so at least once?

Well, the truth is that Wells did so at least once, so I don't see a problem with speaking the truth. It's amusing in that he was spectacularly wrong and also published it in a hack journal:
http://pharyngula.org/index...._theory

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,02:43   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 04 2009,01:24)

The notion of somehow repackaging IDC assertions as hypotheses is a novelty you invented after the problems in [JQ1] and [JQ4] were pointed out.

No, it was my position from the start.
Quote
JAM has made a variety of assertions that I irrationally oppose a general approach to better informing the public of the deficiencies of IDC.

False. You oppose discussing them rationally, choosing to grossly misrepresent my suggestions.
Quote
JAM is misinformed, because for the project of assessing IDC assertions in the context of scientific analysis for the benefit of the public, JAM is late to the party.

I know I'm late, and I don't find it to be much of a party. That was my point.
Quote
... I point this out not simply to note that the WIDF effort somehow got done several years ago, but also to note that I significantly contributed to its creation and development.

I hear your ego loud and clear.
Quote
If JAM had read the front matter, JAM would have learned that the WIDF project arose from my email list bringing together various IDC critics and utilized that as the main line of communication for the project, and JAM also might have noticed a chapter had my name on it.

More ego...
Quote
I certainly feel that IDC assertions can be dissected for the public and shown not to be science, as WIDF demonstrates vividly. I just want it to be done competently.

Given the public's attitude toward evolutionary theory, it clearly hasn't been done competently. That's why I suggested a different approach.

For example, the setting of the goalposts at peer review was utterly incompetent, as anyone with experience knows that BS often gets through peer review, making the Sternberg/Mayer fiasco predictable.

The emphasis should have been on publishing new data, something all of them are afraid to do.

Quote
Rationally, one does not offer to confuse the public by saying that ad hoc assertions can be somehow translated or transformed into, or even inspire, hypotheses with predictions; one instead demonstrates that the assertions fail to form a basis for prediction and thus for empirical test, and that these deficits mean that such assertions have no hope of being considered scientific hypotheses.

That's utter horseshit as a strategy for dealing with laypeople. Moreover, it's wrong because Wells actually has proposed an empirically testable cell biology hypothesis, but my suggestion is that we harp on the fact that he was afraid to test it for himself is not affected.
Quote
(For the specific case with Daniel, this means that his bizarre assertions about the nature of protein chemistry and biology are treated as what we know them to be, simple assertions that have no known foundation.

But they do have a foundation--that's the way that he believes that life was designed. He's simply afraid to put it to any empirical test, which is the key--his creationism flows from a lack of faith. We should be attacking creationists on theological grounds as much as we do on scientific ones.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,06:51   

Citing Myers as support for a contention that Wells delivered an IDC hypothesis is somewhat misleading. From PZ's post:

Quote

Centrioles could very well have this functional property. It doesn't say anything at all about design vs. evolution, though, since one of the consequences of evolution is also that biological systems will have functional properties. Wells has not proposed anything that requires intelligent design. He's made an analogy and drawn a hypothesis about function, nothing more. It looks vaguely like a scientific hypothesis about centriole function, but it says and evaluates nothing about centriole origins.


It's vaguely like a scientific hypothesis, but even more importantly, PZ correctly notes that it does not derive from any coherent expression of IDC. As such, it corresponds to the class of ad hoc claims that I referred to earlier.

JAM:

Quote

Now that is funny coming from someone who assists creationists in fooling the public into thinking that staged debates are how scientific disputes are decided.


I've never participated in a debate whose question was about a scientific dispute. Nor have I ever stated the opinion imputed above to me. Quite the
opposite
:

Quote

I will be blunt. Your “challenge” is simply a publicity stunt.  The content of science is not determined by pseudo-legal encounters between advocates. Instead, it is decided by the community of scientists. In that challenge, those who held to special creation lost, by the preponderance of evidence no less, and did so back in the nineteenth century. Nothing that you or your colleagues have written has changed that. Your chosen line of advocacy is moribund, and you have been reduced to deploying this pathetic “challenge” as a way of avoiding confronting those plain facts.

Needless to say, I’m not going to enter into any such arrangement as you have outlined in your “challenge”. There are several good reasons why I decline to do so, none of them having anything to do with cowardice or fear of what you might say. There is the practical matter that I don’t have a spare $10,000, and I wouldn’t put any amount of money into what amounts to a publicity stunt for you. As mentioned before, science is not determined by the process preferred in legal disputes.

If you want to convince the scientific community that “creation science” is actually science, you already know the right way to accomplish it: develop a coherent theory, evidence in support of that theory, and engage the scientific community via the peer-reviewed literature. That is the only challenge that means anything for your program. Whether you and your colleagues are merely unwilling, or, as seems more likely to me, are unable to meet this challenge makes little difference to the outcome.  Your only recourse has been to criticize other theories. That doesn’t cut it where it counts, which is in the scientific literature.


For someone who supposedly dislikes misrepresentation, you seem eager to engage in it.

JAM:

Quote

I hear your ego loud and clear.


So if I defend myself from your personal attacks, that's all just ego? Heads, tails, it's all a win for you.

JAM:

Quote

Given the public's attitude toward evolutionary theory, it clearly hasn't been done competently. That's why I suggested a different approach.

For example, the setting of the goalposts at peer review was utterly incompetent, as anyone with experience knows that BS often gets through peer review, making the Sternberg/Mayer fiasco predictable.

The emphasis should have been on publishing new data, something all of them are afraid to do.


Using science to show IDC is wrong is not a new or different approach. Nor is any single effort going to suddenly and completely transform the public demographic on acceptance of evolutionary science. WIDF demonstrates my involvement in pursuing the repudiation of IDC via evaluation of its assertions using science, something you repeatedly fail to acknowledge.

As for the rest of your quoted response, you aren't criticizing anything that corresponds to a stance I've taken. Quite the opposite:

Quote

WRE:Actually I'm interested in a public policy aspect of this whole thing. Last month, I got on the Web of Science database search and looked up the term "cold fusion" and it came up with 900 papers there. "Cold fusion" is the poster child for the "not-ready-for-prime-time" physics theory, something that is not ready for going into 9th grade biology, no, physics textbooks. We see the process of science in things like plate tectonics, and the endosymbiotic theory, the neutral theory, and punctuated equilibria, these are things that have earned a place in the textbooks, because the people put in the work, they convinced the scientific community that they had a point, and that's why they're in the textbooks. So, what I'd like to hear from both of you is, is there a justification for giving intelligent design a pass on this process?


In case you are continuing to have difficulty, what the above means is that mere numbers of peer-reviewed papers are not enough. One has to convince the scientific community that one has made one's case.

You apparently haven't read WIDF, as it was easy to find this there:

Quote

This does not mean that ID is disallowed. It means that ID is a very ambitious claim and that it must produce strong evidence before scientists go along with the proposed revolution.


Emphasis added.

If you wish to assert that WIDF or I set a threshold of mere peer review, document your claim.

I won't hold my breath.

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

    
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,07:41   

Quote
Using science to show IDC is wrong is not a new or different approach. Nor is any single effort going to suddenly and completely transform the public demographic on acceptance of evolutionary science.


That's for sure. The public isn't following the evidence on this topic. This is a clash of tribes, not a rational debate.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,09:04   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 11 2009,13:41)
Quote
Using science to show IDC is wrong is not a new or different approach. Nor is any single effort going to suddenly and completely transform the public demographic on acceptance of evolutionary science.


That's for sure. The public isn't following the evidence on this topic. This is a clash of tribes, not a rational debate.

I'd argue that it was a clash of tribe (singular).

{aside}I've yet to see any of these so-called "evangelical/whatever atheists" try to legislate to outlaw churches and freedom of worship for example.

ID etc are basically symptoms of some people's inability to adjust to reality.

I gotsta be blunt, every time I see/hear this false equivalence of "fundies vs atheists" my teeth begin to itch in irritation. It might take two to tango, but it only takes one to ask for a dance.{/aside}

Louis

ETA: I'm not sure whether or not that was where you were going with your comment, so I've edited my post to make it clearer. The humorously serious comment about clash of "tribe" followed by a deviation.

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,09:13   

Quote
ID etc are basically symptoms of some people's inability to adjust to reality.


But when people resist reality you have to as why. I don't believe it is lack of intellect or inability to reason.

I think it is fear.

At one time I thought it was simply fear of damnation for holding wrong beliefs. this may be true in some cases, but I think it more often fear of cutting ties to friends and family.

Creationism is a shibboleth and a circumcision. It defines one's membership in the family and community. It's the secret handshake, the social networking password.

Dropping creationisn is not the same as correcting an error in one's understanding of calculus. It's more like changing ones sexual orientation.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Ideaforager



Posts: 16
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,10:11   

Quote
But when people resist reality you have to as why. I don't believe it is lack of intellect or inability to reason.

I think it is fear.

At one time I thought it was simply fear of damnation for holding wrong beliefs. this may be true in some cases, but I think it more often fear of cutting ties to friends and family.

Creationism is a shibboleth and a circumcision. It defines one's membership in the family and community. It's the secret handshake, the social networking password.

Dropping creationisn is not the same as correcting an error in one's understanding of calculus. It's more like changing ones sexual orientation.
Bravo!

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,10:39   

Seconded.

To change would take a "rebirth" where they completely lose their previous existance.

Deprogrammed.

A very dangerous and possibly life threatening procedure for the great majority of them.

For them a lie is the truth and it's all the result of a particularly unique brand of American theocratic propaganda.


You only need to look at the surprise on their faces when they get that news.

As a political identity project "Jesus über alles" must stop the so called Enlightenment with obfuscation.

The fact that the obfuscation is pure drivel and has not had any effect on the scientific method; the message is mainly for  "true believers" who have subverted the highest offices of the American social realism experiment.

Anyway back to the main program where dog bites man.



Daniel here is a question for you

If your biblical myths are suported in a scientific sense then why do you need preachers?


And before you say anyone can read the Bible to find out I have to point out that you are completely and pathologically incapable of reading for comprehension.

Sad but true Daniel.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,11:33   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 11 2009,15:13)
Quote
ID etc are basically symptoms of some people's inability to adjust to reality.


But when people resist reality you have to as why. I don't believe it is lack of intellect or inability to reason.

I think it is fear.

At one time I thought it was simply fear of damnation for holding wrong beliefs. this may be true in some cases, but I think it more often fear of cutting ties to friends and family.

Creationism is a shibboleth and a circumcision. It defines one's membership in the family and community. It's the secret handshake, the social networking password.

Dropping creationisn is not the same as correcting an error in one's understanding of calculus. It's more like changing ones sexual orientation.

I disagree with none of that apart from the last sentence, it is nothing like changing your sexual orientation! To a certain degree sexual orientation is "hard wired". As far as anyone can tell yet* creationism isn't. Although I happily acknowledge that the behaviours underpinning tribalism ARE hard wired to a similar degree.

However, like I said above, that doesn't make this a clash of tribeS (plural), it can just be a clash of tribe (singular). I also wouldn't reduce creationist adherence to mere stupidity, I agree it's a much more complex social phenomenon.

Louis

*This is an important "yet"! Psychosocial/neurological factors underpinning religious thought (for example) are being elucidated all the time AFAICT.

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

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,18:14   

Louis wrote:

Quote
To a certain degree sexual orientation is "hard wired". As far as anyone can tell yet* creationism isn't.


Well, creationism actually is; but it's not hard wired, it's TARD wired.

Just trying to help.

;)     :)       :p

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,18:16   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 10 2009,19:33)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 10 2009,20:21)
I still answer "No" to your question.  Speciation - as defined by Mayr - is an arbitrary line that can be crossed and recrossed.  It was once thought that grizzly and polar bears were reproductively isolated - until it was found that they're not.  I'm sure many other examples of 'unexpected breeding amongst the reproductively isolated' could be cited as well.

This is only a problem for those who equate "species" with "essential types" separated by immutable barriers. Your creationist thinking is showing. I suggest you take up baraminology.
         
Quote
If the problem were truly "solved" there'd be evolutionary pathways with all or most of the steps filled in - rather than the as-yet-unknown pathways that bridge most every gap between types.

This response reflects no comprehension of, and is irrelevant to, the dilemma to which Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, et al. were responding, nor of the solution offered by Mayr. I suggest you obtain a copy of The Growth of Biological Thought and take a shot at growing your biological thought.
         
Quote
As for the "other mechanisms that go far beyond "the sheer accumulation of micro-mutations".  I'm aware of them, in fact I've pointed out that they are appealed to more and more as micro-mutations (point mutations) are realized incapable of providing the changes needed in a reasonable fashion.

This was "realized" about the time World War I was on the horizon. Again, your response reflects little comprehension of the dilemma to which your heros were responding, and the solution to that dilemma offered more than 60 years ago.  
     
Quote
Hence, the modern synthesis is moving closer to the types of evolution saltationalists have proposed than it is to the type Darwin proposed.

Can you at least acknowledge that Bill?

Even the your favorite saltationists rejected the sort of teleological saltations to which you are referring. From your own quote of Schindewolf:
       
Quote
The unwary observer could easily form the impression that evolution is purposeful, that right from the beginning it is directed toward a predetermined goal and that the path it follows is determined by the goal.  Such a finalistic explanation, however cannot be seriously supported; there is no basis for it in natural science, and the observed facts do not warrant it in the least.

As true today as the day he wrote it.

When you are done with Mayr, I suggest you pick up a copy of Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. There is a very interesting discussion to be had of the need to revise and extend the modern synthesis (itself more than a half-decade old), a discussion that is further being extended by evo-devo as we speak. You're not having it.

Schindewolf rejected Mayr's definition of speciation for the reasons already given.  He found it useless within the framework of paleontology.

I guess you think reproductive isolation is the be-all-end-all of evolutionary thought.  I'm still at a loss as to exactly what it "solves".

--------------
"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: Mar. 11 2009,18:17   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 10 2009,20:40)
 
Quote
If one, then how likely is such a change to become fixed in a population given the fact that such a jump would provide no selective advantage until the two stop codons were removed?


Any one particular neutral mutation (point or otherwise) is very unlikely to become fixed.

But there's a couple of things that have to be taken into consideration:

The average number of mutations is one point something for coding genes (i.e., well over a billion for each billion individuals);

With recombination, neither of a pair of mutations has to actually become fixed in order for both to wind up together in one individual.

Henry

On the same gene?

--------------
"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: Mar. 11 2009,18:26   

Quote (JAM @ Mar. 11 2009,00:43)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 04 2009,01:24)
For the specific case with Daniel, this means that his bizarre assertions about the nature of protein chemistry and biology are treated as what we know them to be, simple assertions that have no known foundation.

But they do have a foundation--that's the way that he believes that life was designed. He's simply afraid to put it to any empirical test, which is the key--his creationism flows from a lack of faith. We should be attacking creationists on theological grounds as much as we do on scientific ones.

You're going to have to explain this one JAM.

How does my argument (I assume that's what you mean by my "creationism") flow from a "lack of faith"?

What empirical test would you suggest I expose my argument to?

How am I "afraid" to put my argument to the test?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,18:27   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 11 2009,18:16)
Schindewolf rejected Mayr's definition of speciation for the reasons already given.  He found it useless within the framework of paleontology.

I guess you think reproductive isolation is the be-all-end-all of evolutionary thought.  I'm still at a loss as to exactly what it "solves".

Go read a book.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,18:27   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 11 2009,18:26)
You're going to have to explain this one JAM.

How does my argument (I assume that's what you mean by my "creationism") flow from a "lack of faith"?

What empirical test would you suggest I expose my argument to?

How am I "afraid" to put my argument to the test?

Go read a book.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,18:28   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 11 2009,18:17)
On the same gene?

Go read a book.

You never know, you might discover the joy of finding answers for yourself!

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,18:39   

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 11 2009,08:39)
Seconded.

To change would take a "rebirth" where they completely lose their previous existance.

Deprogrammed.

A very dangerous and possibly life threatening procedure for the great majority of them.

Dropping one's atheism is probably equally as daunting.

 
Quote
For them a lie is the truth and it's all the result of a particularly unique brand of American theocratic propaganda.

You only need to look at the surprise on their faces when they get that news.

As a political identity project "Jesus über alles" must stop the so called Enlightenment with obfuscation.

The fact that the obfuscation is pure drivel and has not had any effect on the scientific method; the message is mainly for  "true believers" who have subverted the highest offices of the American social realism experiment.

Creationism and ID cannot affect the scientific method because the scientific method disallows the very foundation of their hypotheses - that God made life.  I actually think ID advocates would be better off focusing their efforts on theology.  
 
Quote
Anyway back to the main program where dog bites man.



Daniel here is a question for you

If your biblical myths are suported in a scientific sense then why do you need preachers?


And before you say anyone can read the Bible to find out I have to point out that you are completely and pathologically incapable of reading for comprehension.

Sad but true Daniel.

I'm not sure I understand the question.  Who is it exactly that "needs" preachers?

--------------
"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: Mar. 11 2009,18:42   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 10 2009,18:38)
Daniel Smith:

   
Quote

The fact that point mutations by themselves are incapable of accounting for the changes necessary to provide a new promoter is illustrated by the insertion of a retrovirus.

The modern synthesis relies more and more on pre-packaged, pre-functional genetic insertions to explain complex evolution.  


Your continuing confusion of what "gradualism" is and what "saltation" is, and how "point mutation" is not the only genetic change that is embraced within gradualism, is simply tedious. Get a clue. Take a course. Read a book. Do something besides repeat your same old confusions.

Perhaps you can un-blur the line for me Wesley.

What exactly is the difference between saltationalism and gradualism?

What mechanisms distinguish one from the other?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,18:44   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 11 2009,18:42)
Perhaps you can un-blur the line for me Wesley.

What exactly is the difference between saltationalism and gradualism?

What mechanisms distinguish one from the other?

Go read a book.

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,19:06   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,00:39)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 11 2009,08:39)
Seconded.

To change would take a "rebirth" where they completely lose their previous existance.

Deprogrammed.

A very dangerous and possibly life threatening procedure for the great majority of them.

Dropping one's atheism is probably equally as daunting.

  [SNIP]

How does one "drop one's atheism"?

I, an atheist, lack a belief in god(s) because there is simply no decent evidence for god(s). That's it. I don't believe in god(s) for the exact same reasons I don't believe in unicorns, leprechauns or fairies. Special pleading doesn't work. Perhaps you are under the illusion that atheism is some opposed but equivalent faith to your own. Perhaps you don't understand that atheism is provisional and contingent on the evidence.

Heed Oldman's advice. Read a book.

Louis

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,19:17   

Quote
I actually think ID advocates would be better off focusing their efforts on theology.  


As opposed to what they have been doing?

giggle

Go read a book.  RB suggested a good one for you, but it's a bit dense.  

I'll believe in any god you can provide evidence for, Denial.  Any of them.  All of them, even.  Just pony up.

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

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,19:52   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 11 2009,05:51)
Citing Myers as support for a contention that Wells delivered an IDC hypothesis is somewhat misleading.

Jesus H. Christ. I saw the poster with my own eyes at ASCB. It's merely a pointer to answer YOUR question about its existence:
 
Quote
What exceptions?

Did you forget that you asked a simple question?
 
Quote
From PZ's post:

I really don't give a damn about his opinion. He stopped being a scientist long ago. You're making an appeal to an authority of dubious qualifications, the favorite trick of the IDC movement. The point of science is that ALL appeals to authority are mocked and ranked below evidence.
 
Quote
It's vaguely like a scientific hypothesis, but even more importantly, PZ correctly notes that it does not derive from any coherent expression of IDC.

It is a testable hypothesis. Whether it was derived from any "coherent expression of IDC" is irrelevant and will be irrelevant to laypeople. It's a testable hypothesis. Its predictions are wrong. Most importantly, Wells lacked sufficient faith to test it himself.
 
Quote
As such, it corresponds to the class of ad hoc claims that I referred to earlier.

False. It makes testable predictions. It is wrong. Wells was afraid to test it. That's a helluva lot more engaging than you showing off your Latin.
 
Quote
I've never participated in a debate whose question was about a scientific dispute.

I watched the video. That's exactly what you did. If you weren't helping them to deceive the public as to the nature of science, what exactly did you mean by, "So this is an area of active scholarly debate," then? (that's a quote, btw)
 
Quote
Nor have I ever stated the opinion imputed above to me.

No opinion was imputed to you above. I'm not claiming that you assisted them willingly, for Christ's sake. Your complaint is extra funny given your tendency to manufacture quotations.
 
Quote
I will be blunt. Your “challenge” is simply a publicity stunt...

The fact that you could see it in this case does not negate your failure to see it in the debate in which you participated.
 
Quote
The content of science is not determined by pseudo-legal encounters between advocates.

Very good!
 
Quote
Instead, it is decided by the community of scientists.

Very dumb--this plays into their hands again. It is decided by data. The community of scientists is often wrong about things; we should revel in that for the public's sake.
 
Quote
Your chosen line of advocacy is moribund, and you have been reduced to deploying this pathetic “challenge” as a way of avoiding confronting those plain facts.

Here's my point--instead of the verbiage, just boil it down to "Show me some new data! You can publish on a frickin' cocktail napkin for all I care."

Instead of blathering about the community of scientists as though they are judges, challenge them to produce something new. Keep it simple.
Quote
If you want to convince the scientific community that “creation science” is actually science, you already know the right way to accomplish it: develop a coherent theory,

Bullshit. I've done plenty of science without developing a "coherent theory."
Quote
evidence in support of that theory,

You're making my point in spades. This is grossly misleading to lay people. I've published evidence that demolishes hypotheses that I've either proposed or endorsed in previous publications.

Despite not knowing how to do science by your criteria, my h-index is 22. What's yours?
 
Quote
and engage the scientific community via the peer-reviewed literature.

See, this last bit is what I view as the exploding cigar. They already have made inroads into the peer-reviewed literature with pure apologetics, making you look dumb. The goalposts should be set at the PRIMARY scientific literature, or just new data on a Web page.
 
Quote
For someone who supposedly dislikes misrepresentation, you seem eager to engage in it.

Precisely what have I misrepresented?
 
Quote
Using science to show IDC is wrong is not a new or different approach.

Go back and reread my fisking of what you were so proud of having written. I'm talking about dealing with the lay public, and I have major disagreements with you on WHICH ASPECTS of science to emphasize.
 
Quote
Nor is any single effort going to suddenly and completely transform the public demographic on acceptance of evolutionary science.

I wouldn't ever claim such a thing. I'm pointing out that your going on about peer review was a huge strategic mistake, as they've cleared that hurdle multiple times.
 
Quote
WIDF demonstrates my involvement in pursuing the repudiation of IDC via evaluation of its assertions using science, something you repeatedly fail to acknowledge.

UR USIN DARONG PARTZ. I never claimed that you failed to use science.
Quote
In case you are continuing to have difficulty, what the above means is that mere numbers of peer-reviewed papers are not enough.

Man, you're dense. I'm saying that employing the criterion of peer review  shouldn't even be mentioned. The IDCs already have them.
 
Quote
One has to convince the scientific community that one has made one's case.

No, no, no, no. One has to produce DATA. The data are what convince competent scientists, not rhetoric. You are not conveying this essential point to lay people--you are helping them to think that it's about rhetoric (making one's case)!
Quote
You apparently haven't read WIDF, as it was easy to find this there:  
Quote

This does not mean that ID is disallowed. It means that ID is a very ambitious claim and that it must produce strong evidence before scientists go along with the proposed revolution.

That's gobbledygook. Claims don't produce evidence, people do. Moreover, scientists often fail to go along. The only practical solution is to keep producing evidence. The point is that the IDers are afraid to even start!
 
Quote
If you wish to assert that WIDF or I set a threshold of mere peer review, document your claim.

You're at least being more subtle than you were when you were manufacturing quotes for me. The problem for you is that I'm not qualifying peer review with "mere." Using peer review at all is what I view as the big mistake.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,20:06   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 11 2009,19:16)
I guess you think reproductive isolation is the be-all-end-all of evolutionary thought.  I'm still at a loss as to exactly what it "solves".

That's what I said.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,20:06   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 11 2009,17:17)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 10 2009,20:40)
   
Quote
If one, then how likely is such a change to become fixed in a population given the fact that such a jump would provide no selective advantage until the two stop codons were removed?


Any one particular neutral mutation (point or otherwise) is very unlikely to become fixed.

But there's a couple of things that have to be taken into consideration:

The average number of mutations is one point something for coding genes (i.e., well over a billion for each billion individuals);

With recombination, neither of a pair of mutations has to actually become fixed in order for both to wind up together in one individual.

On the same gene?

Yes, quite often. Have you considered learning some basic genetics?

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,20:14   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 11 2009,17:26)
 
Quote (JAM @ Mar. 11 2009,00:43)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 04 2009,01:24)
For the specific case with Daniel, this means that his bizarre assertions about the nature of protein chemistry and biology are treated as what we know them to be, simple assertions that have no known foundation.

But they do have a foundation--that's the way that he believes that life was designed. He's simply afraid to put it to any empirical test, which is the key--his creationism flows from a lack of faith. We should be attacking creationists on theological grounds as much as we do on scientific ones.

You're going to have to explain this one JAM.

OK.
Quote
How does my argument (I assume that's what you mean by my "creationism") flow from a "lack of faith"?

I don't conflate your creationism with your arguments. Your dishonest arguments are a product of your lack of faith. If you had the slightest faith in your conclusions, you'd be doing biology--there are plenty of rich Christianists around to fund it--instead of turning your predictions into false claims.
Quote
What empirical test would you suggest I expose my argument to?

How about my research? If the ability to hydrolyze a new, synthetic substrate is just a single substitution away (remember, the ability to hydrolyze the natural substrate is not lost), how hard can it be to evolve new biosythetic pathways, particularly after you wrap your hard head around the fact that none of these enzymes are truly specific?

IOW, the ability to hydrolyze the synthetic substrate was there in the wild-type protein; we just switched the relative preference.

And then there's the ironic part--we have to "sensitize" these enzymes precisely because closely-related proteins have overlapping functions, revealing their embarrassing lack of specificity...
Quote
How am I "afraid" to put my argument to the test?

You make unsupported claims instead of asking questions. Quotes aren't support, btw.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,20:28   

Louis done did write abovewards:

Quote
How does one "drop one's atheism"?

I, an atheist, lack a belief in god(s) because there is simply no decent evidence for god(s). That's it. I don't believe in god(s) for the exact same reasons I don't believe in unicorns, leprechauns or fairies. Special pleading doesn't work. Perhaps you are under the illusion that atheism is some opposed but equivalent faith to your own. Perhaps you don't understand that atheism is provisional and contingent on the evidence.

Heed Oldman's advice. Read a book.

Louis


Seconded.  Everything.  Except that I do believe that the Vikings will win the SB this season.  But that's the Minnesotan in me, doncha know, eh!

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,20:28   

Quote (JAM @ Mar. 11 2009,21:14)
IOW, the ability to hydrolyze the synthetic substrate was there in the wild-type protein; we just switched the relative preference.

3.... 2.... 1....

Pow! Daniel misconstrues this as support for front loading. Better clarify.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,20:52   

Quote
How does one "drop one's atheism"?


Pick it up off the table.

Hold it over the floor.

Let go.

:p

Henry

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,21:12   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 10 2009,22:33)
There is a very interesting discussion to be had of the need to revise and extend the modern synthesis (itself more than a half-decade old)...

Of course, I intended "half-century."

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,21:44   

Quote
Schindewolf rejected Mayr's definition of speciation for the reasons already given.  He found it useless within the framework of paleontology.


Which definition of species is used in a particular context depends on how much and what kinds of information are available; that's why there are several definitions. Certainly reproductive isolation can't be used as the criteria for species known only via fossils. (Nor can it be used for asexual species.)

 
Quote
Creationism and ID cannot affect the scientific method because the scientific method disallows the very foundation of their hypotheses - that God made life.


I disagree with the notion that science rules out God having caused life to exist. Scientific conclusions do indicate that God didn't premeditate the details, but causing something doesn't necessarily require deliberating the details ahead of time.

 
Quote
What exactly is the difference between saltationalism and gradualism?

What mechanisms distinguish one from the other?


I figure they both refer to ranges along the spectrum of how much change can occur in one or a few generations. Either of them needs more detail before it's particularly useful in describing events occurring (or not occurring) in a lineage.

Henry

P.S.
Wiki points out that gradualism* is often confused with phyletic gradualism*.

*gradualism = changes per generation stays right around what we see happening today, since large changes generally don't work. Large single generation changes that actually work would be saltation (successful polyploidy events might qualify here; I wonder if successful hybridization would qualify).

*phyletic gradualism = more or less the opposite of punctuated equilibrium.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,22:01   

(deleted after the edit worked on previous post)

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,22:29   

JAM:

Quote

I watched the video. That's exactly what you did. If you weren't helping them to deceive the public as to the nature of science, what exactly did you mean by, "So this is an area of active scholarly debate," then? (that's a quote, btw)


I'd have to re-watch it to be sure, but maybe it has something to do with the topic at hand, which was "Philosophical Issues".

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

    
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2009,23:49   

If I recall correctly, I said something of the sort with respect to the discussion over exactly how far the analogy of cultural evolution to biological evolution extends. But my point there was that so far as Dembski's presentation was concerned, he demonstrated no familiarity at all with that literature.

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

    
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,00:26   

<k.e.. goes swimming with the fishes>

 
Quote
Dropping one's atheism is probably equally as daunting.


Since I was never indoctrinated into a cult in the first place I have nothing to drop.

When I ask "Where do we come from?" the answer I get is not found in one of thousands of ancient creation stories which while full of semiotic nuance have absolutely no basis in fact.

Once you Daniel accept that Adam and Eve existed then a Flood Myth must seem like childs play, literally!

Interestingly though you seem to agree that the "rebirth" experience you aluded to earlier has indeed left you less able to deal with life if it had to be faced without your new belief system.

Boo hoo hoo.

   
Quote
Creationism and ID cannot affect the scientific method because the scientific method disallows the very foundation of their hypotheses - that God made life.  I actually think ID advocates would be better off focusing their efforts on theology.  


Then why don't you since that is your hypotheses.

You do realize that all theology is social realism aka propaganda, don't you?

   
Quote
I'm not sure I understand the question.  Who is it exactly that "needs" preachers?


How revealing.....you and all the others. <yawn>

Not "who" stupid, the promulgation of the idea of the Christian God of the Bible only arrived here through preachers.

Remember that someone had to write it down on scrolls of stretched, scraped, and dried domestic animal skins at some time in the recent historical past (circa 500 - 300BCE) but before that happened the stories were orally passed down through the exclusive guild of sheep's crook* carriers.


IOW if we didn't have a Bible how would we prove god existed as of now?

*


--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,05:14   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 12 2009,02:52)
Quote
How does one "drop one's atheism"?


Pick it up off the table.

Hold it over the floor.

Let go.

:p

Henry

[Fey, aristocratic tone]

Oh will no one rid me of this burdensome atheism?

{follows Henry's suggestion}

There, 'tis done!

[/Fey, aristocratic tone]

But there was nothing to pick up. Oh well.

Louis

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,08:29   

It's like taking one of those dumps where you turn around and there is nothing there but you could swear you got water in your buttcheeks from the splash.

dadgum ol dadgum 'infinite mystery' right there now boy dadgum i swear

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,18:04   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 11 2009,17:17)
I'll believe in any god you can provide evidence for

No you won't.

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

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,18:07   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,19:04)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 11 2009,17:17)
I'll believe in any god you can provide evidence for

No you won't.

I have a standing offer to consider worshiping any god(s) that can heal me.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,18:13   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,18:04)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 11 2009,17:17)
I'll believe in any god you can provide evidence for

No you won't.

I will too!

Why would it even be a question of belief? If you have evidence you have dispensed with belief, no?

I have a kettle. I know my kettle exists. I can show you my kettle. You will then believe my kettle exists too!

WE CAN SHOW MY KETTLE TO THE WORLD AND THEY WILL ALL BELIEVE! EVEN THE PEOPLE WHO ONLY SEE IT ON TV WILL BELIEVE, BECAUSE TV IS REALITY. EVEN A PHOTO WOULD CONVINCE MOST PEOPLE.

EXCEPT DANIEL. HE NEEDS TO KNOW WHERE THE ATOMS ALL CAME FROM.

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,18:55   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 11 2009,18:06)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 11 2009,19:16)
I guess you think reproductive isolation is the be-all-end-all of evolutionary thought.  I'm still at a loss as to exactly what it "solves".

That's what I said.

Bill,

You seem to be under the impression that you have somehow delivered a "knock-out punch" to all saltational theories of evolution simply because sexually reproducing species produce varieties that, for a number of reasons, enter the gray area of reproductive isolation.  All you've done though, is quote Mayr at length.  You have failed to show how Mayr's definition solves any of the problems the saltationalists brought up regarding the theory of evolution.

Specifically, you have failed to show that speciation, of the type you are talking about, can bring about the kinds of changes noted by Schindewolf in the evolution of cephalopods and stony corals.  Schindewolf based his theory on observed gaps in the fossil record.  These gaps appear in "all stratigraphic sequences of the same time period all over the world", in the midst of "massive fossil beds", with "countless specimens" showing continuity in the deposition of the layers (IOW real gaps indicating rapid evolutionary change).

How specifically, does Mayr's speciation solve that problem?

--------------
"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: Mar. 12 2009,19:07   

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 11 2009,22:26)
IOW if we didn't have a Bible how would we prove god existed as of now?

Do you really want to know?

If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS God after all).

It has nothing to do with the bible, or any church, or any book or TV show.  It has to do with humility.  It has to do with hunger (and not the physical kind).

If you really want to know God, you will.

Of course you can argue that this is all psychosomatic - that you can always believe anything if you want to bad enough.  But I promise you, the experiences you'll have with God will erase any doubts.  You just have to be willing.

So...

Do you really want to know?

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

  
Wolfhound



Posts: 468
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,19:38   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,20:07)
If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS God after all).

It has nothing to do with the bible, or any church, or any book or TV show.  It has to do with humility.  It has to do with hunger (and not the physical kind).

If you really want to know God, you will.

What a bunch of horse shit.  I have horses so I know horse shit.

ID: All about teh science.  Not!

Go witness elsewhere, ya git.

--------------
I've found my personality to be an effective form of birth control.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,19:40   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,19:55)
You seem to be under the impression that you have somehow delivered a "knock-out punch" to all saltational theories of evolution simply because sexually reproducing species produce varieties that, for a number of reasons, enter the gray area of reproductive isolation.  All you've done though, is quote Mayr at length.  You have failed to show how Mayr's definition solves any of the problems the saltationalists brought up regarding the theory of evolution.

Of course, I haven't claimed to deliver anything. I'm just reporting my limited understanding of issues that were settled in the professional literature decades ago. There saltation was rendered unconscious and the fight was called. You don't understand/accept the professional literature? Not my problem.

That said, your response displays no comprehension of the issues, or the solutions offered by population thinking, which are nicely encapsulated in the passages I posted from Mayr on page seven of this thread.
     
Quote
(Blah blah blah) How specifically, does Mayr's speciation solve that problem?

If you are unable to grasp the significance of those passages, why don't you get off your ass and read Mayr yourself? The Growth of Biological Thought presents a very readable account of these issues in the context of a comprehensive history.

Vis rapid changes in the fossil record, read Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, or at least those chapters in which he discusses punctuated equilibrium (rapid change followed by periods of stasis), and the current evidence for same, at such exasperating length you'll never want to raise the topic again.

[eta colorful boxing imagery]

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,19:42   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,20:07)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 11 2009,22:26)
IOW if we didn't have a Bible how would we prove god existed as of now?

Do you really want to know?

If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS God after all).

It has nothing to do with the bible, or any church, or any book or TV show.  It has to do with humility.  It has to do with hunger (and not the physical kind).

If you really want to know God, you will.

Of course you can argue that this is all psychosomatic - that you can always believe anything if you want to bad enough.  But I promise you, the experiences you'll have with God will erase any doubts.  You just have to be willing.

So...

Do you really want to know?

So what the fuck are 'his terms'?

Quote
It has nothing to do with the bible, or any church, or any book or TV show


It has to do with you with your imaginary friends not liking women or people actually thinking.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,20:14   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,19:07)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 11 2009,22:26)
IOW if we didn't have a Bible how would we prove god existed as of now?

Do you really want to know?

If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS God after all).

It has nothing to do with the bible, or any church, or any book or TV show.  It has to do with humility.  It has to do with hunger (and not the physical kind).

If you really want to know God, you will.

Of course you can argue that this is all psychosomatic - that you can always believe anything if you want to bad enough.  But I promise you, the experiences you'll have with God will erase any doubts.  You just have to be willing.

So...

Do you really want to know?

Sproing!  My industrial strength Irony meter broke.

You do know that there are Hindus and Muslims who have had experiences just like that, and they have had their doubts erased by the touch of Krishna and Allah.  There are shamans in Russia who know that their spirits are real, having those same kind of experiences.  There are people who KNOW, with 100% certainty, that they have been visited by, and communicated with, aliens.  They know this from their 100% real experiences.  The same as you.

You've just admitted that it is all in your head, and in your feelings.  And, we all know, feelings are never wrong.  No one has ever been deceived by themselves into believing something because they wanted to believe it.  Seriously?  

I'd hazard a guess that most people here were, at one time, believers in some form of the Christian god.  Apparently, though, it was His will that He not communicate with any of us.  

Well, I did have a dream of a bearded man who said, "I'm not real", and who am I to doubt His word.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,20:16   

Oh Danny-Boy Blathered:

Quote
If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  




Me?  I just paid for the ticket.  

BTW, Daniel, God told me that you were full of shit.  We ARE close, you know.  Just letting you know, because he also told me that he's getting awful tired of all those stupid people making up all this nonsense about his exclusivity in his name.  

:)     :)      :)     :)

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,20:54   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,20:07)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 11 2009,22:26)
IOW if we didn't have a Bible how would we prove god existed as of now?

Do you really want to know?

If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS God after all).

It has nothing to do with the bible, or any church, or any book or TV show.  It has to do with humility.  It has to do with hunger (and not the physical kind).

If you really want to know God, you will.

Of course you can argue that this is all psychosomatic - that you can always believe anything if you want to bad enough.  But I promise you, the experiences you'll have with God will erase any doubts.  You just have to be willing.

So...

Do you really want to know?

You are welcome to display your ignorance of discuss science here, but you can proselytize elsewhere.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,20:57   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 12 2009,21:54)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,20:07)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 11 2009,22:26)
IOW if we didn't have a Bible how would we prove god existed as of now?

Do you really want to know?

If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS God after all).

It has nothing to do with the bible, or any church, or any book or TV show.  It has to do with humility.  It has to do with hunger (and not the physical kind).

If you really want to know God, you will.

Of course you can argue that this is all psychosomatic - that you can always believe anything if you want to bad enough.  But I promise you, the experiences you'll have with God will erase any doubts.  You just have to be willing.

So...

Do you really want to know?

You are welcome to display your ignorance of discuss science here, but you can proselytize elsewhere.

As if none of of us have ever heard the god shit previously.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,21:14   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,18:04)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 11 2009,17:17)
I'll believe in any god you can provide evidence for

No you won't.

Sure I will.

The caveat is that you provide evidence.

We have 17 pages of testimony that you are incapable of doing exactly that.

BTW I second RB.  Read Mayr TGBT.  You would do well to become educated on the issues you navel gaze pontificate about most frequently.  

And your preaching is boring.  I've heard much better

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,22:36   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 13 2009,03:07)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 11 2009,22:26)
IOW if we didn't have a Bible how would we prove god existed as of now?

Do you really want to know?

If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS God after all).

It has nothing to do with the bible, or any church, or any book or TV show.  It has to do with humility.  It has to do with hunger (and not the physical kind).

If you really want to know God, you will.

Of course you can argue that this is all psychosomatic - that you can always believe anything if you want to bad enough.  But I promise you, the experiences you'll have with God will erase any doubts.  You just have to be willing.

So...

Do you really want to know?

Oh for Christ's sake that is not proof.

How do I know you are not lying or deluded?

...or even deluded about lying. <yawn>

The question was:

How would you prove god exists now?

IOW
Form a hypothesis
Make a prediction based on that hypothesis
Design an experiment to test that hypothesis
Collect and examine the data
Draw conclusion BASED ON THE DATA
Go back and repeat.

It's a lot easier than you think.


To merely blather on about your personal head voices is just arrant nonsense, you might as well be talking about ice cream.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,22:56   

come on, O gourded one.  that is too much for our friend at this stage.

Denial if you wish to avoid proving God's existence (I suspect that you do, those stables are never cleaned) how about this?

You've got a fellow creationist discussing in some roundabout way what he thinks is a "species".  I hope you note that even other YECs like yourself (O please correct me if I am wrong, dear Daniel) do not necessarily deny that speciation occurs or that it occurs under the mechanisms that you are either denying or are claiming are irrelevant.

Now, this guy has a lot of 'splaining to do.  I am actually admiring his humility, however.  the most honest creationist is one who says "Who knows, I don't" (although the latter may be generally true of YEC, the first is the sort of waffling/sophistry/pure denial of knowledge that you like to do).  

I'm not that ashamed to admit that I read about this cat on PZ's blog but I've been very interested to read it and I wonder where you and he differ, if at all.  You have made no positive claims here except that "nobody will ever know the absolute full path of all electrons" or something similar that no one disputes.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 12 2009,22:58   

What are "His terms"? They're whatever one's preacher says they are, of course. :p

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,00:40   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 13 2009,06:58)
What are "His terms"? They're whatever one's preacher says they are, of course. :p

His terms are purely relativist, he could like/hate gerbilz .....erm .....with a passion of course.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,04:04   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,18:04)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 11 2009,17:17)
I'll believe in any god you can provide evidence for

No you won't.

Try me!
Quote
Of course you can argue that this is all psychosomatic - that you can always believe anything if you want to bad enough.  But I promise you, the experiences you'll have with God will erase any doubts.  You just have to be willing.


Your experience is not mine; mine is not yours. The point is: just what does the experience mean? Oh I see, it means just what you think it means...

I seem to remember cases of murderers claiming "God told me to do it."

Why can't you accept the simple fact that science knows nothing about God; that we can do as much science as we like without ever running into a conflict with God?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,04:57   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 13 2009,01:07)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 11 2009,22:26)
IOW if we didn't have a Bible how would we prove god existed as of now?

Do you really want to know?

If you really want to know if Captain Bumfluff and his Amazing Band of Bear-Buggerers exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS Captain Bumfluff and his Amazing Band of Bear-Buggerers after all).

It has nothing to do with the bible, or any church, or any book or TV show.  It has to do with humility.  It has to do with hunger (and not the physical kind).

If you really want to know Captain Bumfluff and his Amazing Band of Bear-Buggerers, you will.

Of course you can argue that this is all psychosomatic - that you can always believe anything if you want to bad enough.  But I promise you, the experiences you'll have with Captain Bumfluff and his Amazing Band of Bear-Buggerers will erase any doubts.  You just have to be willing.

So...

Do you really want to know?

Fixed it for you.

When you can show me an epistemologically valid method to distinguish between god and Captain Bumfluff and his Amazing Band of Bear-Buggerers then I'll listen. Either that or some evidence. Until then, all you have is special pleading. Your two major logical fallacies (special pleading and No True Scotsman) in this vomit wouldn't convince you of the existence of Zeus, Thor, Wotan, Tiamat, the Sikh god etc. And no amount of tap dancing about "it's all the same god" could save you either. Your hypocrisy regarding deities is noted. Again.

Oh and humility? Humility???? This from an uneducated, ill-informed, weasely, intellectually vacuous, intellectually dishonest liar-for-Jesus like you, Denial? Oh deary me. Irony meters the world over have sprung leaks and melted onto desks.

You also presume that people haven't had the same experiences you have and come to different conclusions. I had a revelation that god doesn't exist, I have seen evidence in my life that god not existing has worked for me, those experiences with god not existing erase any doubts. Why is my revelatory special plead not as valid as yours?

Now, using your Super-Denial-Blahgic are you, at any point, going to refute my assertion that it is impossible for you to prove you are not a child molester? You really don't understand the point of the question do you?

Louis

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,05:27   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,17:07)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 11 2009,22:26)
IOW if we didn't have a Bible how would we prove god existed as of now?

Do you really want to know?

If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS God after all).

It has nothing to do with the bible, or any church, or any book or TV show.  It has to do with humility.  It has to do with hunger (and not the physical kind).

If you really want to know God, you will.

Of course you can argue that this is all psychosomatic - that you can always believe anything if you want to bad enough.  But I promise you, the experiences you'll have with God will erase any doubts.  You just have to be willing.

So...

Do you really want to know?

You know Daniel, that statement got me thinking. I was raised without any religion exactly, but I found God at a very early age. It happens that the holy books are all wrong about what God is.

Of this I'm quite certain since, as I said, I know God quite well.

I should amend that statement a bit. The holy books are on the right track but they put all the mythology in it to help it make sense to people who don't actually have the capacity for spiritual experience. For them, humans made bibles, vedas, cannons, toras, korans and ledgends all full of symbols to help understand. The simpletons assumed these symbols were fact and that's ok. But its wrong.

If you really want to know what God is, you'll have to ask me. And, before you go off half-cocked thinking I'm just teasing or something, I assure you I am totally serious.

Evolution happens. As Joseph Campbell says, "They found the bones." But that doesn't mean God isn't real. It does however, mean that a provincial view of God is incorrect.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
GCUGreyArea



Posts: 180
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,06:05   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,17:07)
 
If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS God after all).

I learned when I was young from books with pictures that God was an old white guy with a bushy beard.  A few years later I saw a rather scruffy looking God standing in a shop doorway one evening and he revealed himself to me.  Fortunately I am gifted with a fairly robust psychology so I found it amusing rather than disturbing, but it did put me off my kebab somewhat.

God also revealed himself to me once in a street cafe in Brighton but it turns out he had been watching football in a bar and was to drunk to ask where the nearest toilet was, resorting instead to waving his godliness in my face and mumbling unintelligibly.

God is all around us...unfortunatly

   
GCUGreyArea



Posts: 180
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,06:28   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,17:07)
 
If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS God after all).

More seriously Daniel, if God doesn't reveal himself to me then does that mean that I don't really want it enough?

What happens if he reveals himself to me and tells me to 'kill all Catholics' - should I obey or is it a test - a trick commandment.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,07:29   

I'm fairly certain that I met a god one night at jack of the wood in asheville.  he was too drunk to be anyone else.  and a little bit surly.  but no care in the world, sitting on the curb.  i wrote something about it at the time but i forgot where i put it.  or more precisely where my wife put it.  lol

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

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

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

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,07:38   

Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 13 2009,12:28)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,17:07)
 
If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS God after all).

More seriously Daniel, if God doesn't reveal himself to me then does that mean that I don't really want it enough?

What happens if he reveals himself to me and tells me to 'kill all Catholics' - should I obey or is it a test - a trick commandment.

It depends if you put sugar on your porridge.

Louis

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,07:47   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 13 2009,15:29)
I'm fairly certain that I met a god one night at jack of the wood in asheville.  he was too drunk to be anyone else.  and a little bit surly.  but no care in the world, sitting on the curb.  i wrote something about it at the time but i forgot where i put it.  or more precisely where my wife put it.  lol

YOUR WIFE MUST THINK YOU ARE A HOMO!

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
GCUGreyArea



Posts: 180
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,07:48   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 13 2009,07:38)
It depends if you put sugar on your porridge.

Louis

DIE, HONEY HATING HEATHEN!!!!!

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,07:49   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 11 2009,02:38)
Daniel Smith:

Quote

The fact that point mutations by themselves are incapable of accounting for the changes necessary to provide a new promoter is illustrated by the insertion of a retrovirus.

The modern synthesis relies more and more on pre-packaged, pre-functional genetic insertions to explain complex evolution.  


Your continuing confusion of what "gradualism" is and what "saltation" is, and how "point mutation" is not the only genetic change that is embraced within gradualism, is simply tedious. Get a clue. Take a course. Read a book. Do something besides repeat your same old confusions.

People (including yourself) have been pointing this out for a while.

What Denial claims to want requires book length answers. People have tried to point him in the relevant direction with varying degrees of politeness.

What Denial demonstrably actually wants is to lie witness for Jesus and destroy Teh Afeeists on Teh Intarnetz (hence frequent claims of "winning" and "having people on the ropes" etc) by "proving" his god did all the work. People have stated they have little interest in this childishness (other forms of childishness = Teh Gud, obviously), and that all of Denial's attempts at argument either rest on a) poor understanding of basic philosophy, b) poor understanding of basic science, c) logically fallacious and incoherent babble, d) all of the above.

It is amazing that no matter how politely Denial is dealt with (or how rudely) his monumental ego hasn't yet allowed him to grasp one tiny shred of this, or indeed this.

I'm beginning to think that stout blows to the head with a large bat of some kind might be useful.

Louis

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,07:50   

I don't know anything about god except for all the twits that do, but one thing I can say is that I have been to paradise many times.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,07:54   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 13 2009,15:49)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 11 2009,02:38)
Daniel Smith:

 
Quote

The fact that point mutations by themselves are incapable of accounting for the changes necessary to provide a new promoter is illustrated by the insertion of a retrovirus.

The modern synthesis relies more and more on pre-packaged, pre-functional genetic insertions to explain complex evolution.  


Your continuing confusion of what "gradualism" is and what "saltation" is, and how "point mutation" is not the only genetic change that is embraced within gradualism, is simply tedious. Get a clue. Take a course. Read a book. Do something besides repeat your same old confusions.

People (including yourself) have been pointing this out for a while.

What Denial claims to want requires book length answers. People have tried to point him in the relevant direction with varying degrees of politeness.

What Denial demonstrably actually wants is to lie witness for Jesus and destroy Teh Afeeists on Teh Intarnetz (hence frequent claims of "winning" and "having people on the ropes" etc) by "proving" his god did all the work. People have stated they have little interest in this childishness (other forms of childishness = Teh Gud, obviously), and that all of Denial's attempts at argument either rest on a) poor understanding of basic philosophy, b) poor understanding of basic science, c) logically fallacious and incoherent babble, d) all of the above.

It is amazing that no matter how politely Denial is dealt with (or how rudely) his monumental ego hasn't yet allowed him to grasp one tiny shred of this, or indeed this.

I'm beginning to think that stout blows to the head with a large bat of some kind might be useful.

Louis

KEEP IT TO A SOUND BITE HOMO.

Daniel is merely the peanut bowl of Godless Darwinism's Bar.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,08:04   

Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 13 2009,13:48)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 13 2009,07:38)
It depends if you put sugar on your porridge.

Louis

DIE, HONEY HATING HEATHEN!!!!!

No TRUE Scotsman would put honey, even Highland Heather Honey, on his porridge either.

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,08:08   

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 13 2009,13:54)
[SNIP]

Daniel is merely the peanut bowl of Godless Darwinism's Bar.

You mean he is covered in at least eleven different types of urine?

I can believe that.

Perhaps Denial could, whilst demonstrating that my contention that it is impossible for him to prove he is not a child molester, demonstrate my next contention i.e. that it is impossible for him to prove he doesn't like being gang urinated on in specialist bars.

These are important questions.

Louis

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

  
GCUGreyArea



Posts: 180
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,08:20   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 13 2009,08:04)
 
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 13 2009,13:48)
   
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 13 2009,07:38)
It depends if you put sugar on your porridge.

Louis

DIE, HONEY HATING HEATHEN!!!!!

No TRUE Scotsman would put honey, even Highland Heather Honey, on his porridge either.

Louis

LOL.
There is no such thing as a true scotsman - just like Obama being a secret muslin scotsmen are secretly welsh. (and the welsh, as any schoolboy will know are just Irishmen who can swim plus a few lost fishermen from the Devonshire coast)

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2009,08:24   

Ok I'll pay that.

Funniest thing I've read here yet.

HOMO!!!!

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2009,00:54   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,17:07)
Do you really want to know?

If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS God after all).

Did God reveal himself to this guy ? If not, how do you distinguish your experience of God from his ? It's not like the God of Abraham hasn't told people to kill on occasion.

OK, I'm being snarky, but it's a serious question. If you don't rely on reason, how do you distinguish your experience of God from mental illness, brain injury or the effects of certain chemicals ? All of these produce what the subjects believe to be genuine religious experiences. What's special about yours ?

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2009,06:21   

Quote
If Jesus was a made up symbol, that would certainly be a clue.  If, however, he was an historic person who really said and did the things attributed to him, these parallels would be very hard to explain.

You said it, but you are free to try...

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2009,07:06   

Expect Daniel to come crashing back in with some super long winded pile AF Dave like with double goal post twist, pike and move.

He will ignore everything else and not answer to people who really know what they are talking about.

He will also change his avatar .......but change it back after reading this.

He is not sure whether to sit facing a corner whacking his head with holy scripture or to read a non creationist biology book....OK that's a bit nasty ....he really is sure (yes and no) but the thought did cross his mind.

Also he thinks he has us on the ropes again <yawn> and the next post will surely prove that to all the useless uneducated twits he has looking over his shoulder. <k.e.. waves>

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2009,13:36   

Quote (JAM @ Mar. 11 2009,18:14)
               
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 11 2009,17:26)
                   
Quote (JAM @ Mar. 11 2009,00:43)
                       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 04 2009,01:24)
For the specific case with Daniel, this means that his bizarre assertions about the nature of protein chemistry and biology are treated as what we know them to be, simple assertions that have no known foundation.

But they do have a foundation--that's the way that he believes that life was designed. He's simply afraid to put it to any empirical test, which is the key--his creationism flows from a lack of faith. We should be attacking creationists on theological grounds as much as we do on scientific ones.

You're going to have to explain this one JAM.

OK.
                 
Quote
How does my argument (I assume that's what you mean by my "creationism") flow from a "lack of faith"?

I don't conflate your creationism with your arguments. Your dishonest arguments are a product of your lack of faith. If you had the slightest faith in your conclusions, you'd be doing biology--there are plenty of rich Christianists around to fund it--instead of turning your predictions into false claims.
                 
Quote
What empirical test would you suggest I expose my argument to?

How about my research? If the ability to hydrolyze a new, synthetic substrate is just a single substitution away (remember, the ability to hydrolyze the natural substrate is not lost), how hard can it be to evolve new biosythetic pathways, particularly after you wrap your hard head around the fact that none of these enzymes are truly specific?

IOW, the ability to hydrolyze the synthetic substrate was there in the wild-type protein; we just switched the relative preference.

And then there's the ironic part--we have to "sensitize" these enzymes precisely because closely-related proteins have overlapping functions, revealing their embarrassing lack of specificity...
                 
Quote
How am I "afraid" to put my argument to the test?

You make unsupported claims instead of asking questions. Quotes aren't support, btw.

JAM,

My "Argument from  Impossibility" (which this thread is about) makes a general prediction:

When it comes to providing explanations for the origin of life's systems (specifically the E. coli amino acid biosynthetic pathway) - "We may be able to hazard a guess, or propose a natural pathway, but when looked at closely, such explanations will always be found to be unsatisfactorily incomplete."

I base this on a theological principle: "if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means", and, "[this] is a necessary consequence of the chasm between an infinite mind and our limited human understandings. In short - God's ways are unfathomable".

This general prediction also implies several specific predictions.  For example, it implies that you (JAM) will never be able to come up with a specific pathway.  You mentioned your research... I'm predicting that - if you try to come up with an evolutionary pathway that fully explains how the E. coli amino acid biosynthetic pathway evolved - you'll fail.  You will run up against a series of uncrossable barriers.  You may be able to show that parts of the process are possible - that enzymes are "just a single substitution away" from a change in function - but you'll never be able to fit all the pieces together.  There was a time when amino acids were not synthesized within the organism.  There was a time when such a pathway began to evolve (presumably after enzymes were already being produced for other functions).  The challenge is to provide a road map (one that passes the test of peer review) showing how the current pathway evolved from that point.  I'm predicting that the answer to your question "how hard can it be to evolve new biosythetic pathways?" - when applied to the evolution of a specific pathway in a real organism - is "Impossible".  There are too many variables to consider.  Our puny human minds cannot fathom them all.  Only an omniscient mind is capable of weighing all the options and coming up with a process that utilizes the best compromise.  Only God can make life work.

This specific prediction applies to any individual who attempts such a feat.  I predict that everyone here on this board - Wesley, Bill, Erasmus, Albatrossity... everyone - will fail (if they ever try that is).  I predict that any scientist, anywhere, who attempts to reconstruct such a pathway will fail.  You see, the beauty of my prediction is that it is already being tested the world over - by the most brilliant minds science has to offer.  I can be proven wrong at any time.  Isn't that what it's all about JAM?

--------------
"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: Mar. 14 2009,13:42   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 12 2009,17:40)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,19:55)
You seem to be under the impression that you have somehow delivered a "knock-out punch" to all saltational theories of evolution simply because sexually reproducing species produce varieties that, for a number of reasons, enter the gray area of reproductive isolation.  All you've done though, is quote Mayr at length.  You have failed to show how Mayr's definition solves any of the problems the saltationalists brought up regarding the theory of evolution.

Of course, I haven't claimed to deliver anything. I'm just reporting my limited understanding of issues that were settled in the professional literature decades ago. There saltation was rendered unconscious and the fight was called. You don't understand/accept the professional literature? Not my problem.

That said, your response displays no comprehension of the issues, or the solutions offered by population thinking, which are nicely encapsulated in the passages I posted from Mayr on page seven of this thread.
       
Quote
(Blah blah blah) How specifically, does Mayr's speciation solve that problem?

If you are unable to grasp the significance of those passages, why don't you get off your ass and read Mayr yourself? The Growth of Biological Thought presents a very readable account of these issues in the context of a comprehensive history.

Vis rapid changes in the fossil record, read Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, or at least those chapters in which he discusses punctuated equilibrium (rapid change followed by periods of stasis), and the current evidence for same, at such exasperating length you'll never want to raise the topic again.

[eta colorful boxing imagery]

I may just do that Bill.

I have nothing to fear from reading such literature.

I'm betting you'll never read Schindewolf or Berg though.

--------------
"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: Mar. 14 2009,13:46   

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 12 2009,18:14)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,19:07)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 11 2009,22:26)
IOW if we didn't have a Bible how would we prove god existed as of now?

Do you really want to know?

If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS God after all).

It has nothing to do with the bible, or any church, or any book or TV show.  It has to do with humility.  It has to do with hunger (and not the physical kind).

If you really want to know God, you will.

Of course you can argue that this is all psychosomatic - that you can always believe anything if you want to bad enough.  But I promise you, the experiences you'll have with God will erase any doubts.  You just have to be willing.

So...

Do you really want to know?

Sproing!  My industrial strength Irony meter broke.

You do know that there are Hindus and Muslims who have had experiences just like that, and they have had their doubts erased by the touch of Krishna and Allah.  There are shamans in Russia who know that their spirits are real, having those same kind of experiences.  There are people who KNOW, with 100% certainty, that they have been visited by, and communicated with, aliens.  They know this from their 100% real experiences.  The same as you.

You've just admitted that it is all in your head, and in your feelings.  And, we all know, feelings are never wrong.  No one has ever been deceived by themselves into believing something because they wanted to believe it.  Seriously?  

I'd hazard a guess that most people here were, at one time, believers in some form of the Christian god.  Apparently, though, it was His will that He not communicate with any of us.  

Well, I did have a dream of a bearded man who said, "I'm not real", and who am I to doubt His word.

There are many spirits in the world.  It's up to us to discern them.  How do you know whether the thoughts you express are your own or those of some God-hating demon living inside you?

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2009,13:48   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 14 2009,13:36)
Quote (JAM @ Mar. 11 2009,18:14)
                 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 11 2009,17:26)
                     
Quote (JAM @ Mar. 11 2009,00:43)
                         
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 04 2009,01:24)
For the specific case with Daniel, this means that his bizarre assertions about the nature of protein chemistry and biology are treated as what we know them to be, simple assertions that have no known foundation.

But they do have a foundation--that's the way that he believes that life was designed. He's simply afraid to put it to any empirical test, which is the key--his creationism flows from a lack of faith. We should be attacking creationists on theological grounds as much as we do on scientific ones.

You're going to have to explain this one JAM.

OK.
                   
Quote
How does my argument (I assume that's what you mean by my "creationism") flow from a "lack of faith"?

I don't conflate your creationism with your arguments. Your dishonest arguments are a product of your lack of faith. If you had the slightest faith in your conclusions, you'd be doing biology--there are plenty of rich Christianists around to fund it--instead of turning your predictions into false claims.
                   
Quote
What empirical test would you suggest I expose my argument to?

How about my research? If the ability to hydrolyze a new, synthetic substrate is just a single substitution away (remember, the ability to hydrolyze the natural substrate is not lost), how hard can it be to evolve new biosythetic pathways, particularly after you wrap your hard head around the fact that none of these enzymes are truly specific?

IOW, the ability to hydrolyze the synthetic substrate was there in the wild-type protein; we just switched the relative preference.

And then there's the ironic part--we have to "sensitize" these enzymes precisely because closely-related proteins have overlapping functions, revealing their embarrassing lack of specificity...
                   
Quote
How am I "afraid" to put my argument to the test?

You make unsupported claims instead of asking questions. Quotes aren't support, btw.

JAM,

My "Argument from  Impossibility" (which this thread is about) makes a general prediction:

When it comes to providing explanations for the origin of life's systems (specifically the E. coli amino acid biosynthetic pathway) - "We may be able to hazard a guess, or propose a natural pathway, but when looked at closely, such explanations will always be found to be unsatisfactorily incomplete."

I base this on a theological principle: "if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means", and, "[this] is a necessary consequence of the chasm between an infinite mind and our limited human understandings. In short - God's ways are unfathomable".

This general prediction also implies several specific predictions.  For example, it implies that you (JAM) will never be able to come up with a specific pathway.  You mentioned your research... I'm predicting that - if you try to come up with an evolutionary pathway that fully explains how the E. coli amino acid biosynthetic pathway evolved - you'll fail.  You will run up against a series of uncrossable barriers.  You may be able to show that parts of the process are possible - that enzymes are "just a single substitution away" from a change in function - but you'll never be able to fit all the pieces together.  There was a time when amino acids were not synthesized within the organism.  There was a time when such a pathway began to evolve (presumably after enzymes were already being produced for other functions).  The challenge is to provide a road map (one that passes the test of peer review) showing how the current pathway evolved from that point.  I'm predicting that the answer to your question "how hard can it be to evolve new biosythetic pathways?" - when applied to the evolution of a specific pathway in a real organism - is "Impossible".  There are too many variables to consider.  Our puny human minds cannot fathom them all.  Only an omniscient mind is capable of weighing all the options and coming up with a process that utilizes the best compromise.  Only God can make life work.

This specific prediction applies to any individual who attempts such a feat.  I predict that everyone here on this board - Wesley, Bill, Erasmus, Albatrossity... everyone - will fail (if they ever try that is).  I predict that any scientist, anywhere, who attempts to reconstruct such a pathway will fail.  You see, the beauty of my prediction is that it is already being tested the world over - by the most brilliant minds science has to offer.  I can be proven wrong at any time.  Isn't that what it's all about JAM?

rofl k.e.. was right

ohh a real soothsayer, that'un

dimbulb doesn't realize (or does he) that
Quote
such explanations will always be found to be unsatisfactorily incomplete
is just a manifestation of penis envy.  anyone can claim unsatisfactorily incomplete.  your fucking address is unsatisfactorily incomplete, and I guarantee you have never got your toes sucked while sitting on the john.  

your rhetorical toolbox is unsatisfactorily incomplete, goalpost shifting is all you have ever had.  what a wanker

--------------
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: Mar. 14 2009,13:50   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 14 2009,13:42)
I may just do that Bill.

I have nothing to fear from reading such literature.

I'm betting you'll never read Schindewolf or Berg though.

Then why the fuck don't you you boring little man?
You would have thought you would have read a few books on the topic before coming here to engage professional biologists on their own ground.
Fool.
   
Quote
I'm betting you'll never read Schindewolf or Berg though.

Science does not require that you read everything that led up to the current level of understanding. There is no need to learn about phlogiston before learning about combustion. It might be interesting from a historical perspective, but it has been debunked and is going to stay debunked.

Pigmaei gigantum humeris impositi plusquam ipsi gigantes vident

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2009,13:53   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 14 2009,13:42)
God-hating demon living inside you?

Believe in witches too Danny boy?

"demon living inside you"?



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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2009,15:11   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 14 2009,14:36)
JAM,

My "Argument from  Impossibility" (which this thread is about) makes a general prediction:

When it comes to providing explanations for the origin of life's systems (specifically the E. coli amino acid biosynthetic pathway) - "We may be able to hazard a guess, or propose a natural pathway, but when looked at closely, such explanations will always be found to be unsatisfactorily incomplete."

I base this on a theological principle: "if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means", and, "[this] is a necessary consequence of the chasm between an infinite mind and our limited human understandings. In short - God's ways are unfathomable".

This general prediction also implies several specific predictions.  For example, it implies that you (JAM) will never be able to come up with a specific pathway.  You mentioned your research... I'm predicting that - if you try to come up with an evolutionary pathway that fully explains how the E. coli amino acid biosynthetic pathway evolved - you'll fail.  You will run up against a series of uncrossable barriers.  You may be able to show that parts of the process are possible - that enzymes are "just a single substitution away" from a change in function - but you'll never be able to fit all the pieces together.  There was a time when amino acids were not synthesized within the organism.  There was a time when such a pathway began to evolve (presumably after enzymes were already being produced for other functions).  The challenge is to provide a road map (one that passes the test of peer review) showing how the current pathway evolved from that point.  I'm predicting that the answer to your question "how hard can it be to evolve new biosythetic pathways?" - when applied to the evolution of a specific pathway in a real organism - is "Impossible".  There are too many variables to consider.  Our puny human minds cannot fathom them all.  Only an omniscient mind is capable of weighing all the options and coming up with a process that utilizes the best compromise.  Only God can make life work.

This specific prediction applies to any individual who attempts such a feat.  I predict that everyone here on this board - Wesley, Bill, Erasmus, Albatrossity... everyone - will fail (if they ever try that is).  I predict that any scientist, anywhere, who attempts to reconstruct such a pathway will fail.  You see, the beauty of my prediction is that it is already being tested the world over - by the most brilliant minds science has to offer.  I can be proven wrong at any time.  Isn't that what it's all about JAM?

For Chrissakes, Daniel. Have you sustained some sort of brain damage you'd like to disclose?

We've been over this. These "predictions" concern future history only, are not amenable to meaningful test before the end of history, are incapable of guiding empirical research, put no unique POSITIVE assertions to the test, and hence are NOT SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS. They may be about the future of science, but they are not scientific. You unequivocally conceded these points.

I thought you had come to grips with this. Apparently that grasp has unraveled. Do we really have to repeat that discussion?

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Rrr



Posts: 146
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2009,15:25   

Occome on. He's in a lather already. Just rinse, and repeat.
Cut to the chase, Dan.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2009,15:33   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 14 2009,21:11)
[SNIP]

Do we really have to repeat that discussion?

As much as I read every post you make, and love them all, can I please place a vote for: oh fucking happy hippety hoppety hell no!

;-)

Louis

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

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2009,16:17   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 14 2009,13:46)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 12 2009,18:14)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,19:07)
   
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 11 2009,22:26)
IOW if we didn't have a Bible how would we prove god existed as of now?

Do you really want to know?

If you really want to know if God exists, he'll reveal himself to you.  But (and this is the one that usually kills the deal) it has to be on his terms - not yours (he IS God after all).

It has nothing to do with the bible, or any church, or any book or TV show.  It has to do with humility.  It has to do with hunger (and not the physical kind).

If you really want to know God, you will.

Of course you can argue that this is all psychosomatic - that you can always believe anything if you want to bad enough.  But I promise you, the experiences you'll have with God will erase any doubts.  You just have to be willing.

So...

Do you really want to know?

Sproing!  My industrial strength Irony meter broke.

You do know that there are Hindus and Muslims who have had experiences just like that, and they have had their doubts erased by the touch of Krishna and Allah.  There are shamans in Russia who know that their spirits are real, having those same kind of experiences.  There are people who KNOW, with 100% certainty, that they have been visited by, and communicated with, aliens.  They know this from their 100% real experiences.  The same as you.

You've just admitted that it is all in your head, and in your feelings.  And, we all know, feelings are never wrong.  No one has ever been deceived by themselves into believing something because they wanted to believe it.  Seriously?  

I'd hazard a guess that most people here were, at one time, believers in some form of the Christian god.  Apparently, though, it was His will that He not communicate with any of us.  

Well, I did have a dream of a bearded man who said, "I'm not real", and who am I to doubt His word.

There are many spirits in the world.  It's up to us to discern them.  How do you know whether the thoughts you express are your own or those of some God-hating demon living inside you?

Since there is no evidence that any such spirits or gods exist, I can be reasonably confident that my thoughts are my own.  Can you be as sure?  Can you be sure that you are not a brain in a jar, being force fed an artificial world?

Are you claiming that your god is but one of many?  

Seriously, do you really question whether your thoughts are your own?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2009,17:45   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 14 2009,16:33)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 14 2009,21:11)
[SNIP]

Do we really have to repeat that discussion?

As much as I read every post you make, and love them all, can I please place a vote for: oh fucking happy hippety hoppety hell no!

;-)

Louis

I've been leaving bread crumbs on the Möbius strip. We HAVE been here before. Frak.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2009,17:59   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 14 2009,23:45)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 14 2009,16:33)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 14 2009,21:11)
[SNIP]

Do we really have to repeat that discussion?

As much as I read every post you make, and love them all, can I please place a vote for: oh fucking happy hippety hoppety hell no!

;-)

Louis

I've been leaving bread crumbs on the Möbius strip. We HAVE been here before. Frak.

What worries me is not only have we been here before, but are here permanently.

The Mobius treadmill is difficult to get off, especially if it's the only treadmill in town.

Louis

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2009,18:18   

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 14 2009,08:06)
Expect Daniel to come crashing back in with some super long winded pile AF Dave like with double goal post twist, pike and move.

He will ignore everything else and not answer to people who really know what they are talking about.

He will also change his avatar .......but change it back after reading this.

He is not sure whether to sit facing a corner whacking his head with holy scripture or to read a non creationist biology book....OK that's a bit nasty ....he really is sure (yes and no) but the thought did cross his mind.

Also he thinks he has us on the ropes again <yawn> and the next post will surely prove that to all the useless uneducated twits he has looking over his shoulder. <k.e.. waves>

You should take up The Amazing Randi on his million bucks.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2009,18:31   

dan i suggest you be prepared to attack the notion from all sides.  bill is suggesting a great book.  also read this one


if you are honestly curious then the conflict between these two points of view may illuminate the spuriousness of your objections.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2009,20:05   

Quote
I've been leaving bread crumbs on the M?bius strip. We HAVE been here before. Frak.


Deja Vu isn't what it used to be?

So say we all.

Henry

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 14 2009,20:54   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 14 2009,13:36)
I can be proven wrong at any time.  

No you can't, because you will never accept that the detail is sufficient.
Quote
Isn't that what it's all about JAM?

No. A large part of science is about making testable predictions and then trying to disprove them yourself.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2009,08:18   

Quote
Seriously, do you really question whether your thoughts are your own?


He doesn't have to, he has his head so far up his own sphincter it looks like turdils all the whey inn....to him.

And it smells like roses and Hallmark thank very much  not jock straps and gunpowder.

Danny boy is mindless.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2009,13:28   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 14 2009,18:54)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 14 2009,13:36)
I can be proven wrong at any time.  

No you can't, because you will never accept that the detail is sufficient.
   
Quote
Isn't that what it's all about JAM?

No. A large part of science is about making testable predictions and then trying to disprove them yourself.

None of this depends on me.  I'm no scientist, nor am I qualified to decide whether a proposed pathway would work or not.  This is why I said that the test is "to provide a road map (one that passes the test of peer review)".  I've said repeatedly that any proposed pathway - in order to meet my challenge - must be able to convince the actual scientists most familiar with the matter.  These are the people who will tear it apart and expose its weaknesses - not me.

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2009,13:37   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 15 2009,14:28)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 14 2009,18:54)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 14 2009,13:36)
I can be proven wrong at any time.  

No you can't, because you will never accept that the detail is sufficient.
   
Quote
Isn't that what it's all about JAM?

No. A large part of science is about making testable predictions and then trying to disprove them yourself.

None of this depends on me.  I'm no scientist, nor am I qualified to decide whether a proposed pathway would work or not.  This is why I said that the test is "to provide a road map (one that passes the test of peer review)".  I've said repeatedly that any proposed pathway - in order to meet my challenge - must be able to convince the actual scientists most familiar with the matter.  These are the people who will tear it apart and expose its weaknesses - not me.

LOLTARD.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2009,13:47   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 15 2009,13:37)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 15 2009,14:28)
 
Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 14 2009,18:54)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 14 2009,13:36)
I can be proven wrong at any time.  

No you can't, because you will never accept that the detail is sufficient.
       
Quote
Isn't that what it's all about JAM?

No. A large part of science is about making testable predictions and then trying to disprove them yourself.

None of this depends on me.  I'm no scientist, nor am I qualified to decide whether a proposed pathway would work or not.  This is why I said that the test is "to provide a road map (one that passes the test of peer review)".  I've said repeatedly that any proposed pathway - in order to meet my challenge - must be able to convince the actual scientists most familiar with the matter.  These are the people who will tear it apart and expose its weaknesses - not me.

LOLTARD.

I am speechless - I wouldn't have believed it hadn't I read it.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2009,13:54   

Daniel's epistemology in its most pure form:
Quote
The beauty of my prediction is that it doesn't depend on my knowledge of science, it depends on yours - all of you. I'm predicting, not only that you don't know how any of life's systems came about, but that you never will!


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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2009,14:04   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 14 2009,13:11)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 14 2009,14:36)
JAM,

My "Argument from  Impossibility" (which this thread is about) makes a general prediction:

When it comes to providing explanations for the origin of life's systems (specifically the E. coli amino acid biosynthetic pathway) - "We may be able to hazard a guess, or propose a natural pathway, but when looked at closely, such explanations will always be found to be unsatisfactorily incomplete."

I base this on a theological principle: "if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means", and, "[this] is a necessary consequence of the chasm between an infinite mind and our limited human understandings. In short - God's ways are unfathomable".

This general prediction also implies several specific predictions.  For example, it implies that you (JAM) will never be able to come up with a specific pathway.  You mentioned your research... I'm predicting that - if you try to come up with an evolutionary pathway that fully explains how the E. coli amino acid biosynthetic pathway evolved - you'll fail.  You will run up against a series of uncrossable barriers.  You may be able to show that parts of the process are possible - that enzymes are "just a single substitution away" from a change in function - but you'll never be able to fit all the pieces together.  There was a time when amino acids were not synthesized within the organism.  There was a time when such a pathway began to evolve (presumably after enzymes were already being produced for other functions).  The challenge is to provide a road map (one that passes the test of peer review) showing how the current pathway evolved from that point.  I'm predicting that the answer to your question "how hard can it be to evolve new biosythetic pathways?" - when applied to the evolution of a specific pathway in a real organism - is "Impossible".  There are too many variables to consider.  Our puny human minds cannot fathom them all.  Only an omniscient mind is capable of weighing all the options and coming up with a process that utilizes the best compromise.  Only God can make life work.

This specific prediction applies to any individual who attempts such a feat.  I predict that everyone here on this board - Wesley, Bill, Erasmus, Albatrossity... everyone - will fail (if they ever try that is).  I predict that any scientist, anywhere, who attempts to reconstruct such a pathway will fail.  You see, the beauty of my prediction is that it is already being tested the world over - by the most brilliant minds science has to offer.  I can be proven wrong at any time.  Isn't that what it's all about JAM?

For Chrissakes, Daniel. Have you sustained some sort of brain damage you'd like to disclose?

We've been over this. These "predictions" concern future history only, are not amenable to meaningful test before the end of history, are incapable of guiding empirical research, put no unique POSITIVE assertions to the test, and hence are NOT SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS. They may be about the future of science, but they are not scientific. You unequivocally conceded these points.

I thought you had come to grips with this. Apparently that grasp has unraveled. Do we really have to repeat that discussion?

Where do I claim that my prediction is "scientific" Bill?

I must point out however, that your objections were in regard to my general prediction.  I am attempting to narrow down my general (untestable) prediction to specific (testable) predictions.  My specific prediction (implied by the general prediction) is that, right now, at this moment, if you attempt to reconstruct an evolutionary pathway--that leads from the time when amino acids were not synthesized within the organism to the present E. coli synthesis biopathway--your attempt will fail to convince the scientific community.

It may still not be scientific (don't know, don't care), but it IS a prediction.  It CAN be tested.  It CAN be proven wrong at any time.

Now, it's easy to predict that you personally won't be able to do it - it's another thing altogether to predict that the best scientist currently working on the problem (whoever that may be), will also fail on every attempt.  That too is implied by my prediction however.

So while the general prediction (that all scientists will fail until the end of time) cannot be empirically verified, the specific prediction (that you personally will fail on your next attempt) can be.

Now, it is still true that my predictions "concern future history only" (A "prediction" of past events is no prediction Bill), "are incapable of guiding empirical research", and "put no unique POSITIVE assertions to the test", and if that disqualifies them as "scientific" I'm OK with that.

I'm perfectly content just being right.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2009,14:17   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 15 2009,14:04)
We've been over this. These "predictions" concern future history only, are not amenable to meaningful test before the end of history, are incapable of guiding empirical research, put no unique POSITIVE assertions to the test, and hence are NOT SCIENTIFIC PREDICTIONS. They may be about the future of science, but they are not scientific. You unequivocally conceded these points.

I thought you had come to grips with this. Apparently that grasp has unraveled. Do we really have to repeat that discussion?[/quote]
Where do I claim that my prediction is "scientific" Bill?

I must point out however, that your objections were in regard to my general prediction.  I am attempting to narrow down my general (untestable) prediction to specific (testable) predictions.  My specific prediction (implied by the general prediction) is that, right now, at this moment, if you attempt to reconstruct an evolutionary pathway--that leads from the time when amino acids were not synthesized within the organism to the present E. coli synthesis biopathway--your attempt will fail to convince the scientific community.

It may still not be scientific (don't know, don't care), but it IS a prediction.  It CAN be tested.  It CAN be proven wrong at any time.

Now, it's easy to predict that you personally won't be able to do it - it's another thing altogether to predict that the best scientist currently working on the problem (whoever that may be), will also fail on every attempt.  That too is implied by my prediction however.

So while the general prediction (that all scientists will fail until the end of time) cannot be empirically verified, the specific prediction (that you personally will fail on your next attempt) can be.

Now, it is still true that my predictions "concern future history only" (A "prediction" of past events is no prediction Bill), "are incapable of guiding empirical research", and "put no unique POSITIVE assertions to the test", and if that disqualifies them as "scientific" I'm OK with that.

I'm perfectly content just being right.

Yes, yes, we know.

You've said exactly this several times.

Boooorrrriiinnggg.

About that worldwide fuludde? Want to talk about that instead, as there is no more mileage in you "non-scientific" predictions?

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

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2009,14:26   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 15 2009,13:28)
Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 14 2009,18:54)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 14 2009,13:36)
I can be proven wrong at any time.  

No you can't, because you will never accept that the detail is sufficient.
   
Quote
Isn't that what it's all about JAM?

No. A large part of science is about making testable predictions and then trying to disprove them yourself.

None of this depends on me.  I'm no scientist, nor am I qualified to decide whether a proposed pathway would work or not.  This is why I said that the test is "to provide a road map (one that passes the test of peer review)".  I've said repeatedly that any proposed pathway - in order to meet my challenge - must be able to convince the actual scientists most familiar with the matter.  These are the people who will tear it apart and expose its weaknesses - not me.

So, if the hypothesis (and theory, btw) has been tested and passed peer review, it is settled science and reality?

So, since the theory of evolution, and all these thousands of papers and experiments and results, published every year - all these that support evolutionary pathways and development - all the ones that have been tested and passed peer review - these are all good?

In other words, you've cut your own throat again.

Your only objection is that it is not detailed enough for you, even though you say that scientists, not you, are the judge.

SPROING!

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2009,14:41   

Quote
Now, it's easy to predict that you personally won't be able to do it - it's another thing altogether to predict that the best scientist currently working on the problem (whoever that may be), will also fail on every attempt.  That too is implied by my prediction however.


No dummy, it isn't.  At all.  

Why don't you talk about Duh Flud.  This nonsense is trivial and repetitive, and stupid to boot.

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

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2009,15:08   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 15 2009,13:28)
I'm no scientist, nor am I qualified to decide whether a proposed pathway would work or not.

We'd noticed.
 
Quote
I've said repeatedly that any proposed pathway - in order to meet my challenge - must be able to convince the actual scientists most familiar with the matter.

They have been convinced. It's just that you refuse to accept that you are not qualified to decide whether a proposed pathway would work or not, and refuse to accept that it has convinced the actual scientists most familiar with the matter.

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2009,15:59   

Quote (Richard Simons @ Mar. 15 2009,15:08)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 15 2009,13:28)
I'm no scientist, nor am I qualified to decide whether a proposed pathway would work or not.
We'd noticed.
Quote
I've said repeatedly that any proposed pathway - in order to meet my challenge - must be able to convince the actual scientists most familiar with the matter.
They have been convinced. It's just that you refuse to accept that you are not qualified to decide whether a proposed pathway would work or not, and refuse to accept that it has convinced the actual scientists most familiar with the matter.

What I'd like to know from Daniel are the names of these "scientists who study this stuff" who do not accept it.

So Daniel, either pony up these names of scientists who study this stuff and don't accept it, bonus points if they are not religious, or retract your statement and admit your objections are due to your own personal incredulity.

Then we can start on Flood Geology.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2009,17:10   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 15 2009,15:04)
I must point out however, that your objections were in regard to my general prediction.  I am attempting to narrow down my general (untestable) prediction to specific (testable) predictions.  My specific prediction (implied by the general prediction) is that, right now, at this moment, if you attempt to reconstruct an evolutionary pathway--that leads from the time when amino acids were not synthesized within the organism to the present E. coli synthesis biopathway--your attempt will fail to convince the scientific community.

It may still not be scientific (don't know, don't care), but it IS a prediction.  It CAN be tested.  It CAN be proven wrong at any time.

Now, it's easy to predict that you personally won't be able to do it - it's another thing altogether to predict that the best scientist currently working on the problem (whoever that may be), will also fail on every attempt.  That too is implied by my prediction however.

So while the general prediction (that all scientists will fail until the end of time) cannot be empirically verified, the specific prediction (that you personally will fail on your next attempt) can be.

Now, it is still true that my predictions "concern future history only" (A "prediction" of past events is no prediction Bill), "are incapable of guiding empirical research", and "put no unique POSITIVE assertions to the test", and if that disqualifies them as "scientific" I'm OK with that.

I'm perfectly content just being right.

Hahahaha!

That's got to be your dumbest post EVAR, Daniel. Your "argument from impossibility?" Let's get to patting its face with a shovel.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2009,19:21   

Quote
I must point out however, that your objections were in regard to my general prediction.  I am attempting to narrow down my general (untestable) prediction to specific (testable) predictions.  My specific prediction (implied by the general prediction) is that, right now, at this moment, if you attempt to reconstruct an evolutionary pathway -- that leads from the time when amino acids were not synthesized within the organism to the present E. coli synthesis biopathway -- your attempt will fail to convince the scientific community.


The theory does not actually imply an ability to reconstruct the exact order in which relevant mutations fixated in the species. As far as I can tell, the only situation in which that would even be possible would be if every step in that series was somehow preserved in a side branch from that species. Otherwise, even if the relevant mutations are identified (presumably by analyzing differences in genomes), the order of fixation would not be determinable after the fact.

Some of what the current theory does imply are: that genetically independent lineages will diverge in the vast majority of aspects not forced by their current environment (i.e., matching nested hierarchies for major structural features); lineages will sometimes split into independent groups; close relatives will be within geographic reach of each other; features that exist in lots of species will generally occur in a variety of forms and effectiveness; upper limits on amount of change that can occur in a short time frame (i.e., what can happen in one generation (or a few) would be equivalent to what we see happening in that amount of time).

Those are all testable, and if the basics of the theory were wrong, numerous contradictions should have already been found.

One cannot refute a theory by referring to unanswered questions, not unless the theory actually implies that the referenced question should be answerable.

Henry

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2009,22:32   

Back a ways, Louis wrote:

Quote
I'm beginning to think that stout blows to the head with a large bat of some kind might be useful.




My only question is:  African or European?

:)      :)      :)       :)      :)      :)

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2009,23:16   

There was a small fruit bat attempting to stow away on the Space Shuttle before launch this evening:

photo: http://tinyurl.com/d3h5w4

video: http://tinyurl.com/2lrx46

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 15 2009,23:21   

Lou wrote:

Quote
There was a small fruit bat attempting to stow away on the Space Shuttle before launch this evening:


Must have been an escapee from spring training.

:)     :)     :)     :)

BTW, did you know that the bat is the state bird of Canada?

(hahaha Minnesotans can joke about our neighbors to the great white north, eh.)

:)    :)    :p

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,06:13   

Quote (jeffox @ Mar. 15 2009,23:21)
Lou wrote:

Quote
There was a small fruit bat attempting to stow away on the Space Shuttle before launch this evening:


Must have been an escapee from spring training.

:)     :)     :)     :)

BTW, did you know that the bat is the state bird of Canada?

(hahaha Minnesotans can joke about our neighbors to the great white north, eh.)

:)    :)    :p

Oh course!

Just as the mosquito is the State Bird of Minnesota!

One just wonders how much brain damage is caused by that blue smoke that comes out when they first fire up their snow mobiles in September.....

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,06:23   

Quote (jeffox @ Mar. 16 2009,04:32)
[SNIMAGE]

My only question is:  African or European?

:)      :)      :)       :)      :)      :)

Both. Hard. And a good number of times.

Louis

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,12:57   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 15 2009,14:04)
This specific prediction applies to any individual who attempts such a feat.  I predict that everyone here on this board - Wesley, Bill, Erasmus, Albatrossity... everyone - will fail (if they ever try that is).

 I predict that any scientist, anywhere, who attempts to reconstruct such a pathway will fail.  You see, the beauty of my prediction is that it is already being tested the world over - by the most brilliant minds science has to offer.  I can be proven wrong at any time.  

I must point out however, that your objections were in regard to my general prediction.  I am attempting to narrow down my general (untestable) prediction to specific (testable) predictions.  My specific prediction (implied by the general prediction) is that, right now, at this moment, if you attempt to reconstruct an evolutionary pathway--that leads from the time when amino acids were not synthesized within the organism to the present E. coli synthesis biopathway--your attempt will fail to convince the scientific community.

It may still not be scientific (don't know, don't care), but it IS a prediction.  It CAN be tested.  It CAN be proven wrong at any time.

Now, it's easy to predict that you personally won't be able to do it - it's another thing altogether to predict that the best scientist currently working on the problem (whoever that may be), will also fail on every attempt.  That too is implied by my prediction however.

So while the general prediction (that all scientists will fail until the end of time) cannot be empirically verified, the specific prediction (that you personally will fail on your next attempt) can be.

Now, it is still true that my predictions "concern future history only" (A "prediction" of past events is no prediction Bill), "are incapable of guiding empirical research", and "put no unique POSITIVE assertions to the test", and if that disqualifies them as "scientific" I'm OK with that.

I'm perfectly content just being right.

You're babbling, Daniel.

I provided you with papers that passed peer-review muster and are "generally accepted" by the relevant scientific community.

Those papers were *precisely* about the evolution of an aminosynthesis pathway in E. coli -- exactly what you asked for

I asked you to read those papers long ago. Have you? This was weeks ago, Daniel.

The fact is this ; the "scientific community " is not judging them here, Daniel...YOU were. That's why people were taking YOU up on your shifting "challenges."

And sure, you're "content" in pretending to be right...it is ALWAYS possible to use an infinite regress and ask "oh, well, then where did THAT come from?" when presented with data

And that's all you do -- you rely on that simple tactic each and every time, Daniel

It's possible to apply that tactic of "where did *that* come from?" to any system and then pretend that you've accomplished some great feat when eventually the respondent must answer "we don't know at this time" ...but it's not a great feat.

It's simply funny that you think it's accomplishing anything at all. And I mean "funny" in a tragicomic sort of way.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 16 2009,21:33   

FrankH wrote:

Quote
Just as the mosquito is the State Bird of Minnesota!

One just wonders how much brain damage is caused by that blue smoke that comes out when they first fire up their snow mobiles in September.....



Ya ya, ya know, dere are only two seasons a da year in Minnesota, dey say. . . . . one is called "cold", and da udder is called "bugs".   :)     :p

'Cept fer Bommadeer, ya know, alla snowmobiles are made in Minnesota, eh!  Myself, I useta haf a '77 Polaris Colt 340 cc freeair.  I musta put 4000 miles on 'er jus drivin' roun' and roun' da country block.  Oh, ya ya, dem were da days, eh!

Ya know, snowmobiles caught on in Minnesota real good cuzza da climate (a course) but also cuzza da fact dat ya gotta mix da gas fer 'em.  Well, datsa same as fer da outboard, ya know.  Plenny a dem in Minnesota, eh!

:)      :)      :)

Raccoon got your tongue, Daniel Smith?      :p

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,00:10   

And you can also use your snowmobiles in the summer.


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

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,01:25   

Fah!  Dat's da wrong way ta have a liquid-cooled engine!

:)       :)      :)        :)

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,06:44   

Quote (jeffox @ Mar. 17 2009,01:25)
Fah!  Dat's da wrong way ta have a liquid-cooled engine!

:)       :)      :)        :)

Oh yah sure.....

Wit da air bein dat cold up dare, no water cooled engines are needed you know.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,10:51   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 16 2009,10:57)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 15 2009,14:04)
This specific prediction applies to any individual who attempts such a feat.  I predict that everyone here on this board - Wesley, Bill, Erasmus, Albatrossity... everyone - will fail (if they ever try that is).

 I predict that any scientist, anywhere, who attempts to reconstruct such a pathway will fail.  You see, the beauty of my prediction is that it is already being tested the world over - by the most brilliant minds science has to offer.  I can be proven wrong at any time.  

I must point out however, that your objections were in regard to my general prediction.  I am attempting to narrow down my general (untestable) prediction to specific (testable) predictions.  My specific prediction (implied by the general prediction) is that, right now, at this moment, if you attempt to reconstruct an evolutionary pathway--that leads from the time when amino acids were not synthesized within the organism to the present E. coli synthesis biopathway--your attempt will fail to convince the scientific community.

It may still not be scientific (don't know, don't care), but it IS a prediction.  It CAN be tested.  It CAN be proven wrong at any time.

Now, it's easy to predict that you personally won't be able to do it - it's another thing altogether to predict that the best scientist currently working on the problem (whoever that may be), will also fail on every attempt.  That too is implied by my prediction however.

So while the general prediction (that all scientists will fail until the end of time) cannot be empirically verified, the specific prediction (that you personally will fail on your next attempt) can be.

Now, it is still true that my predictions "concern future history only" (A "prediction" of past events is no prediction Bill), "are incapable of guiding empirical research", and "put no unique POSITIVE assertions to the test", and if that disqualifies them as "scientific" I'm OK with that.

I'm perfectly content just being right.

You're babbling, Daniel.

I provided you with papers that passed peer-review muster and are "generally accepted" by the relevant scientific community.

Those papers were *precisely* about the evolution of an aminosynthesis pathway in E. coli -- exactly what you asked for

I asked you to read those papers long ago. Have you? This was weeks ago, Daniel.

The fact is this ; the "scientific community " is not judging them here, Daniel...YOU were. That's why people were taking YOU up on your shifting "challenges."

And sure, you're "content" in pretending to be right...it is ALWAYS possible to use an infinite regress and ask "oh, well, then where did THAT come from?" when presented with data

And that's all you do -- you rely on that simple tactic each and every time, Daniel

It's possible to apply that tactic of "where did *that* come from?" to any system and then pretend that you've accomplished some great feat when eventually the respondent must answer "we don't know at this time" ...but it's not a great feat.

It's simply funny that you think it's accomplishing anything at all. And I mean "funny" in a tragicomic sort of way.

I read the paper you cited and responded to it here.

--------------
"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: Mar. 17 2009,10:53   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 15 2009,15:10)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 15 2009,15:04)
I must point out however, that your objections were in regard to my general prediction.  I am attempting to narrow down my general (untestable) prediction to specific (testable) predictions.  My specific prediction (implied by the general prediction) is that, right now, at this moment, if you attempt to reconstruct an evolutionary pathway--that leads from the time when amino acids were not synthesized within the organism to the present E. coli synthesis biopathway--your attempt will fail to convince the scientific community.

It may still not be scientific (don't know, don't care), but it IS a prediction.  It CAN be tested.  It CAN be proven wrong at any time.

Now, it's easy to predict that you personally won't be able to do it - it's another thing altogether to predict that the best scientist currently working on the problem (whoever that may be), will also fail on every attempt.  That too is implied by my prediction however.

So while the general prediction (that all scientists will fail until the end of time) cannot be empirically verified, the specific prediction (that you personally will fail on your next attempt) can be.

Now, it is still true that my predictions "concern future history only" (A "prediction" of past events is no prediction Bill), "are incapable of guiding empirical research", and "put no unique POSITIVE assertions to the test", and if that disqualifies them as "scientific" I'm OK with that.

I'm perfectly content just being right.

Hahahaha!

That's got to be your dumbest post EVAR, Daniel. Your "argument from impossibility?" Let's get to patting its face with a shovel.

Why?  Because no one can prove it wrong?

--------------
"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: Mar. 17 2009,10:54   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 15 2009,12:41)
 
Quote
Now, it's easy to predict that you personally won't be able to do it - it's another thing altogether to predict that the best scientist currently working on the problem (whoever that may be), will also fail on every attempt.  That too is implied by my prediction however.


No dummy, it isn't.  At all.  

Why isn't 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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,11:44   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 02 2009,21:13)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 02 2009,18:40)
I read the paper.

It describes another working biosynthetic pathway for lysine within Thermus thermophilus - which is, I'm guessing by the name, a hot water bacteria.

They then do what virtually every (recent) paper I've ever read on the subject of evolution does: they create a phylogenetic tree based on similarities of genome sequence among any number of organisms.

So they've shown varying similarity of sequence.  

So how does this support your 3 step pathway?              
Quote
(1) an initial ATP-utilizing sequence leads to
(2) the Miyazaki-based alpha aminoadipate Lysine producing sequence in archaeons
(3) and gives rise to to the DAP lysine pathway in E. coli

Similarity of sequence doesn't translate into workable biosynthetic pathways in totally different organisms.  It also doesn't explain how we got here from there.  How did we get from (1) to (2)?  From (2) to (3)?

If you truly want to meet my challenge, it's not enough to point to working systems and say "connect the dots yourself".  You've got to actually show a concrete workable pathway between them.  Otherwise all you've done is blow smoke.

Gee, Daniel, you've conveniently ignored what I said here:
       
Quote
Plug the paper title into Google Scholar, for example, and you get immediate hits describing models of how the DAP and AAA lysine-production routes came about.


See, 'cause if you'd actually bothered to do that, you'd have gotten the IMMEDIATE hits that you could have followed up on.

I've said I'm unwilling to do your work for you or "teach" you because you've already shown me that you will then just simply move your goalposts to "where did THAT come from?!?!" in search of a place to insert your God of the Gaps (I can suggest ...eh, nevermind) You forget that I've already TRIED that route, Denial, and I didn't like your goalpost-shifting and other games. The VERY FIRST thing you then asked for was a molecule-by-molecule explanation of abiogenesis itself. This meant that not only would i be spoon-feeding you, I'd have to write a whole fuckin' textbook worth of posts just for you to make a face, spit up, and demand that I work backwards until you found your Gap to stick a God in.

ANYWAY...IF you'd bothered to follow up on your own, in your terrible thirst for knowledge (*snort*), what would you have found?

Why, you'd find things like:

Fondi M, Brilli M, Emiliani G, Paffetti D, Fani R. (2007) The primordial metabolism: an ancestral interconnection between leucine, arginine, and lysine biosynthesis.BMC Evol Biol. 2007 Aug 16;7 Suppl 2:S3. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1963480


Miyazaki J, Kobashi N, et al.(2002) Characterization of a lysK gene as an argE homolog in Thermus thermophilus HB27 FEBS Lett. 2002 Feb 13;512(1-3):269-74

and

Velasco AM, Leguina JI, Lazcano A.(2002) Molecular evolution of the lysine biosynthetic pathways. J Mol Evol. 2002 Oct;55(4):445-59

and hundreds more.

So...Denial...now we come to the real questions. WHY didn't YOU do that?

(1) Are you so intellectually lazy that you needed ME to plug the Nishida article into Google scholar and follow the citations? Or
(2) Are you so intellectually dishonest that you won't actually read material bearing on the problems you claim to be interested in? Or
(3) Is it both?

Hell, Denial, let's be honest here...you're NOT INTERESTED in anything but "witnessing" and you're not interested in even straining your dainty intellect even to plug a cite into Google Scholar as I suggested...because the results might not be pleasing to you and you'd get the vapors. Piss off.

And this was my response, Denial. And Those are the PaperS (see the plural?) that I referenced in my previous post. Not "paper" singular...

And you said that you'd be reading them...did you?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,11:45   

And this was the follow-up, Denial;

Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 03 2009,19:07)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 03 2009,18:47)
I don't have a lot of time but I have been reading most of the papers linked to.  I've read plenty of these types of papers before as well and they all pretty much follow the same formula:
1)  Hypothesize a connection between two extant genomes.
2)  Compare sequence data.
3)  Confirm connection.

This tells me nothing about how to get from 'point A' to 'point B'.  It tells me that these organisms share sequence data.  I already expect that.  That fact alone does not confirm that they evolved via the proposed accidental mechanism sifted through the proposed, often arbitrary, filter.

What I'd have to see to confirm that would be a step by step account of these steps.

You all are on the verge of declaring such an account "unknowable" - so in the end whadya got?

Similar sequences.

That's it.

Perhaps if you actually read the papers you'd see that there's more than just "sequence data" shown as evidence. But I understand you're a busy, busy fella that scarecely has time to post his daily quota of lengthy blather.

But, since you HAVE read the papers, I'd like you to talk to me about why the common pathway of e. Coli aminosynthesis involves ASDH in three separate metabolic routes?


--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,11:45   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 04 2009,18:35)
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 03 2009,17:07)
But, since you HAVE read the papers, I'd like you to talk to me about why the common pathway of e. Coli aminosynthesis involves ASDH in three separate metabolic routes?

I'm guessing whole genome duplication (twice) produced the three pathways which later differentiated into three separate routes.

Am I close?

(I cheated a bit - I read the abstracts)

I've just printed out the two papers you linked to and I'll get back to you when I'm done with them.

And finally,above, your claim that you'd read them and get back to the topic (which was a month or more ago). Now, of COURSE I know exactly what your next move is, Denial...you will not accept that these papers represent widespread scientific acceptance of an evolutionary pathway for aminosynthesis between differing species -- even though you just posted that such criteria were in fact the only thing that counts.

No, no! ---  What you'll now say is that it doesn't satisfy Denial Smith and that you are "really" the arbiter of what is acceptable levels of "pathetic detail."

You'll just say "Yeah, well, where did THAT come from" and pretend that you've "won" something -- even as you admit that you can't even make first steps towards a body of evidence concerning any of your mythic, mystical creation stories.

It's not that I really give a shit about what YOU personally think, DannyGoy, I just stop in from time to time to poke at the Denial Pinata and see what tard drops out.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,11:47   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 17 2009,10:54)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 15 2009,12:41)
 
Quote
Now, it's easy to predict that you personally won't be able to do it - it's another thing altogether to predict that the best scientist currently working on the problem (whoever that may be), will also fail on every attempt.  That too is implied by my prediction however.


No dummy, it isn't.  At all.  

Why isn't it?

if i honestly thought you asked that in good faith it would be one thing.  given 19 pages of this miasma, i don't hold that assumption.  

your 'prediction' is not a prediction, it is some sort of belief statement predicated upon some metaphysical presupposition that we don't know and honestly don't really care about.

you have moved the goal posts in a circle too many times for me to take you seriously anymore.  you want to get serious, let's talk about Duh Flud.  Exploring your solipcism is boring.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,15:12   

Quote
You'll just say "Yeah, well, where did THAT come from" and pretend that you've "won" something


Yeah well, where did that come from? Huh? :p

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,17:44   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 17 2009,09:45)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 04 2009,18:35)
           
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 03 2009,17:07)
But, since you HAVE read the papers, I'd like you to talk to me about why the common pathway of e. Coli aminosynthesis involves ASDH in three separate metabolic routes?

I'm guessing whole genome duplication (twice) produced the three pathways which later differentiated into three separate routes.

Am I close?

(I cheated a bit - I read the abstracts)

I've just printed out the two papers you linked to and I'll get back to you when I'm done with them.

And finally,above, your claim that you'd read them and get back to the topic (which was a month or more ago). Now, of COURSE I know exactly what your next move is, Denial...you will not accept that these papers represent widespread scientific acceptance of an evolutionary pathway for aminosynthesis between differing species -- even though you just posted that such criteria were in fact the only thing that counts.

No, no! ---  What you'll now say is that it doesn't satisfy Denial Smith and that you are "really" the arbiter of what is acceptable levels of "pathetic detail."

You'll just say "Yeah, well, where did THAT come from" and pretend that you've "won" something -- even as you admit that you can't even make first steps towards a body of evidence concerning any of your mythic, mystical creation stories.

It's not that I really give a shit about what YOU personally think, DannyGoy, I just stop in from time to time to poke at the Denial Pinata and see what tard drops out.

Apparently deadman, your definition of "pathway" is different from mine.  My definition involves laying out the intermediate steps.  Yours seems to only deal with the beginning and the end, IOW, as long as we have a possible beginning, and a known end, you seem to think we have a "pathway" between them.

Until we're on the same page on that issue, we're just going to argue in circles.

I'll agree that the scientific community has lots of "pathways" that meet your definition.  They have none (to my knowledge) that meet mine.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,17:50   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 17 2009,17:44)
 My definition involves laying out the intermediate steps.  

Between what and what?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,17:55   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 15 2009,13:28)
None of this depends on me.  I'm no scientist, nor am I qualified to decide whether a proposed pathway would work or not.  This is why I said that the test is "to provide a road map (one that passes the test of peer review)".  I've said repeatedly that any proposed pathway - in order to meet my challenge - must be able to convince the actual scientists most familiar with the matter.  These are the people who will tear it apart and expose its weaknesses - not me.

 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 17 2009,17:44)
I'll agree that the scientific community has lots of "pathways" that meet your definition.  They have none (to my knowledge) that meet mine.


Err? Troll?

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,18:12   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 12 2009,19:14)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,18:04)
       
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 11 2009,17:17)
I'll believe in any god you can provide evidence for

No you won't.

Sure I will.

The caveat is that you provide evidence.

Oh you want evidence?

Why didn't you say so?

How about the fact that life is programmed via information coded into molecular structures on multiple levels - both genetic and epigenetic?

Or how about the fact that all life requires little mini-chemists running around inside cells, catalyzing chemical reactions that otherwise could not happen quickly enough to sustain life?

How about the fact that science has no explanation for how these things, or any multitude of other things, originated?

I don't expect you to view these things as evidence though.  I fully expect you to obey the thoughts that dominate your mind and soul: "there is no evidence", "there is no God", and "you're much smarter than anyone who believes in God".

The truth is that, until your eyes are opened (until you first believe), you'll never see the evidence.  

Once you believe however, the blinders fall off and the evidence for God is revealed to be everywhere you look.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,18:22   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 17 2009,18:12)
Once you believe however, the blinders fall off and the evidence for God is revealed to be everywhere you look.

I mean dude, have you ever really LOOKED at your fingers?



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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,18:35   

So what you're saying Daniel, is that once you've decided to believe that everything is evidence for god, you'll look around and see evidence for god everywhere?

Wow. That's, erm, "evidence" right there. Just ot of what you think it is.

Fuck it, collect two of those arguments together, strap them to a bike frame and go for a ride.

ETA: Which god btw? Zeus?

Louis

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,18:52   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 17 2009,17:44)
Apparently deadman, your definition of "pathway" is different from mine.  My definition involves laying out the intermediate steps.  Yours seems to only deal with the beginning and the end, IOW, as long as we have a possible beginning, and a known end, you seem to think we have a "pathway" between them.

Until we're on the same page on that issue, we're just going to argue in circles.

I'll agree that the scientific community has lots of "pathways" that meet your definition.  They have none (to my knowledge) that meet mine.

Apparently your notion of personal initiative in investigation of said pathway that might meet your criteria is minimal at best, Daniel.

Answer me honestly; have you even bothered, in this last month and more,  to read ( and I mean READ with comprehension, not "look at") the MULTIPLE papers I pointed to, Daniel?

If not, how can you even pretend to be honestly investigating anything at all? Is it your contention that someone here has to spoon feed you like you were a small brainless child?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 17 2009,22:53   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 17 2009,18:12)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 12 2009,19:14)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,18:04)
       
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 11 2009,17:17)
I'll believe in any god you can provide evidence for

No you won't.

Sure I will.

The caveat is that you provide evidence.

Oh you want evidence?

Why didn't you say so?

How about the fact that life is programmed via information coded into molecular structures on multiple levels - both genetic and epigenetic?

Or how about the fact that all life requires little mini-chemists running around inside cells, catalyzing chemical reactions that otherwise could not happen quickly enough to sustain life?

How about the fact that science has no explanation for how these things, or any multitude of other things, originated?

I don't expect you to view these things as evidence though.  I fully expect you to obey the thoughts that dominate your mind and soul: "there is no evidence", "there is no God", and "you're much smarter than anyone who believes in God".

The truth is that, until your eyes are opened (until you first believe), you'll never see the evidence.  

Once you believe however, the blinders fall off and the evidence for God is revealed to be everywhere you look.

Well, the whole "life is programmed" is all an assumption that presupposes a programmer.  Horrible way to start.  That's like asking "who designed the universe" - first you need to show that the universe was designed, and that it was designed by an intelligence, before the question even has any meaning.  

There are also no chemists inside cells, merely biological processes.  Drop the analogies that imply intelligence as a necessity.  If the processes did not happen quickly enough, yes, you would die.  So would have any ancient creatures that had those chemicals.  The ones that had ones that let them survive, did.  That is also pretty bad, and is evidence for nothing, really.

How about the fact that all religions have multiple explanations for the origin of all these things, but since there is no way of testing them to determine their accuracy, they are essentially meaningless and useful only as emotional sops.  

"Look around you" is not evidence.

There are no thoughts that dominate my soul, for other than a metaphor for emotions, there is no evidence that such exists.  I'll grant the mind part, even though you only have the first correct.  "There is no god" (or even "God", as the one-time, one of the many sons of El, Yahweh, wants to be known by now) is a negative statement that cannot be proven, although the lack of evidence strongly suggests that the concept, as thought up by many people today, is false.  As for "your much smarter...", well, define "smarter" in clear objective terms and we may have a measurable standard that can be used to determine such things. Anything else is either ego or fact, if backed up by evidence.

The last bit is the (pretty much) last refuge of the defeated.  "...(U)ntil you first believe...you'll never see the evidence."

How convenient that the evidence is only visible after you believe.  Pretty sad evidence, if it is not objectively visible to all, but instead relies upon the subjective beliefs and emotions of the viewer to interpret it.  Funny thing, as stated before, I have Wiccans (and Witches), Asatruar, Hindus, and even a Muslim, tell me the same thing.  I guess we're back to your belief in spirits, but that just leaves the fact that, using that "logic", then it is possible that you are the sad victim of an evil spirit, deluded into believing in a false idol, while you ignore the real gods.  

Sad, really.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,00:07   

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 17 2009,20:53)
"Look around you" is not evidence.

No, but it was a highly educational show ;)

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,02:22   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 18 2009,01:52)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 17 2009,17:44)
Apparently deadman, your definition of "pathway" is different from mine.  My definition involves laying out the intermediate steps.  Yours seems to only deal with the beginning and the end, IOW, as long as we have a possible beginning, and a known end, you seem to think we have a "pathway" between them.

Until we're on the same page on that issue, we're just going to argue in circles.

I'll agree that the scientific community has lots of "pathways" that meet your definition.  They have none (to my knowledge) that meet mine.

Apparently your notion of personal initiative in investigation of said pathway that might meet your criteria is minimal at best, Daniel.

Answer me honestly; have you even bothered, in this last month and more,  to read ( and I mean READ with comprehension, not "look at") the MULTIPLE papers I pointed to, Daniel?

If not, how can you even pretend to be honestly investigating anything at all? Is it your contention that someone here has to spoon feed you like you were a small brainless child?

Denial reminds me of Behe in Dover.

Pathetic...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,04:10   

Quote
Denial reminds me of Behe in Dover.

Being that bad, there is no hope....

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,05:11   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 18 2009,00:52)
[SNIP]

Is it your contention that someone here has to spoon feed you like you were a small brainless child?

Yes it is.

He's been given pointers to sources for the information he claims to want several times. He consistently refuses to do so.

It is PAINFULLY obvious what Denial is all about. He is massaging his ego by playing with people with degrees* on the 'net. His occasional comments about us thinking that we're so much smarter than anyone who believes in god (not true**) are dead giveaways (amongst other things). Denial is a typical example of a tiresome little inadequate. No real achievements to his name, he is seeking to knock the achievements of others because they disagree with him.

All his farting about with the literature/Schindewolf etc when he doesn't understand the basics is another case in point. He's cherry picked that which he thinks supports his "argument" (and I use the term very hesitantly in Denial's case, because his argument is nothing more than "SEE TEH GOD DUNNIT YOU'LL NEVER KNOW OVVERWISE!!") and is trying to bolster his enormously puffed up ego by being able to claim he "engages in debate with Darwinist Atheist scientists" etc. He hasn't even managed to grasp the difference between "lack of belief" and "belief of lack" for fuck's sake. The basics are where Denial falls flat. But then of course for a true son of god of mighty powers and specialness like Denial, the basics are beneath him. Right?

Add to this the "I've got you on the ropes" and "I'm winning" comments that eructate from the pus filled boil that is Denial occasionally, and you've got another plank in his bridge of bullshit. And I do think Denial is a bullshitter, not a liar. Liars care about the truth enough to know what it is and disguise it, bullshitters don't care about the truth at all and will simply say whatever pops into their empty little heads for the sake of convenience. Anything is grist to the mill of a bullshitter.

Denial could have done what he claims, falsely, to want: i.e, ask for information, pointers etc. and gone away and looked them up and LEARNED something. He could have come back and asked honest questions time and time again and been given informed answers. He hasn't. He has instead persisted in his misunderstandings against the evidence.

Ergo: the man's a turd.

Louis

*Note that I don't think anyone's ego should be massaged by this. It's chip on shoulder derived drivel.

**Francis Collins, for example, much, much, MUCH smarter than me, much more highly achieving etc, believes in god. I happen to think he's wrong about the god thing for good reasons, but then he doesn't believe in god for good reasons by his own admission. It's not merely a question of being "smart". Smart people can and do believe dumb things. Personally I believe I am the new Adonis, when in reality I'm only slightly better looking than Arden, who has a face like a bulldog licking piss off a nettle.

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

  
huwp



Posts: 172
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,05:43   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 17 2009,18:35)
ETA: Which god btw? Zeus?

Louis

Actually, he answered that one some time go.  Apparently it's "the real one".

Which makes me wonder how he knows it's the real one; I suppose he just knows.

I've always found this rather odd - generally people do seem to believe in the God of the family they were born into (although people clearly do convert to other religions) and they never really question why it is that they had the good fortune to be born into that particular belief.  I suppose they were simply chosen.

This seems to me to be somewhat arrogant.

Anyway, I've always had a bit of a problem with the whole God is Love thing and that the only way to Heaven is through the Saviour Jebus.  Basically, if you were born before He was born, or were born in some location the missionaries hadn't got to yet, then you're going to Hell when you die.  No argument, doesn't matter what you've done in your life, you're going to spend the rest of eternity in damnation.

It just doesn't seem very loving to me.

  
GCUGreyArea



Posts: 180
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,06:03   

Quote (huwp @ Mar. 18 2009,05:43)
Anyway, I've always had a bit of a problem with the whole God is Love thing and that the only way to Heaven is through the Saviour Jebus.  Basically, if you were born before He was born, or were born in some location the missionaries hadn't got to yet, then you're going to Hell when you die.  No argument, doesn't matter what you've done in your life, you're going to spend the rest of eternity in damnation.

It is, and always was, a translation error.  It should be 'Jesus shaves' and was an attempt in biblical times to improve hygiene by reducing the bushiness of beards.

   
huwp



Posts: 172
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,06:11   

Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 18 2009,06:03)
It is, and always was, a translation error.  It should be 'Jesus shaves' and was an attempt in biblical times to improve hygiene by reducing the bushiness of beards.

Oh.  I see now.  Silly me.

Hang on a minute - that would be Jesus trims wouldn't it?  Are you pulling my leg?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,06:11   

Quote (huwp @ Mar. 18 2009,11:43)
Quote (Louis @ Mar. 17 2009,18:35)
ETA: Which god btw? Zeus?

Louis

Actually, he answered that one some time go.  Apparently it's "the real one".

[SNIP]

Oh good. That would be me then. I'm the Real God* and I defy anyone to prove differently.

Just as I defy Denial to prove my contention that it is impossible for him to prove he is not a child molester, wrong.

I wonder if he gets it yet?

Louis

*I has evidens. I r muvin in mysteareus wais. Dunt billeave me? Watch me dans!

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,06:21   

Quote (huwp @ Mar. 18 2009,12:11)
Quote (GCUGreyArea @ Mar. 18 2009,06:03)
It is, and always was, a translation error.  It should be 'Jesus shaves' and was an attempt in biblical times to improve hygiene by reducing the bushiness of beards.

Oh.  I see now.  Silly me.

Hang on a minute - that would be Jesus trims wouldn't it?  Are you pulling my leg?

It can't be Jesus shaves because shaving the corners of your beard is an Abomination Unto Nuggan Gawd.

Oops, got my fictional mythology mixed up there for a minute.

It must be Jesus Raves. And I think I can prove this one. Raves in the 90s were typified by heavy consumption of amphetamines. Jesus apparently fed the five thousand with a footling amount of loaves and fishes. What the scriptures neglect to mention is that he had a massive bag of a well known appetite suppressant, amphetamine sulfate, as well. He also hung about with 12 other geezers, assorted prostitutes, and looked like a hippy, ergo: Jesus was a dealer.

If we add the unquestionable testimony of that not-in-any-way-jingoist-nonsense hymn "Jerusalem", we know that Jesus walked upon England's mountains green. One place very well sited for access to the mountains of the Lake District is Manchester (far from the best place but they have good Chinese food and Jesus was a sucker for General Tsao's chicken), so from this we know that Jesus was a Mancunian dope dealer, whizzed off his tits much of the time. Therefore I think it is very likely that Jesus spent much of his formative years in fields, fucked up beyond all recognition, gurning away to repetitive music, and saying things like "banging tune, our lad". Jesus raves.

Quite Erroneous Doofustradum

Louis

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,07:26   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 17 2009,18:12)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 12 2009,19:14)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 12 2009,18:04)
       
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 11 2009,17:17)
I'll believe in any god you can provide evidence for

No you won't.

Sure I will.

The caveat is that you provide evidence.

Oh you want evidence?

Why didn't you say so?

How about the fact that life is programmed via information coded into molecular structures on multiple levels - both genetic and epigenetic?

Or how about the fact that all life requires little mini-chemists running around inside cells, catalyzing chemical reactions that otherwise could not happen quickly enough to sustain life?

How about the fact that science has no explanation for how these things, or any multitude of other things, originated?

I don't expect you to view these things as evidence though.  I fully expect you to obey the thoughts that dominate your mind and soul: "there is no evidence", "there is no God", and "you're much smarter than anyone who believes in God".

The truth is that, until your eyes are opened (until you first believe), you'll never see the evidence.  

Once you believe however, the blinders fall off and the evidence for God is revealed to be everywhere you look.

What a maroon.

Reifying the definition of 'life' until you have inserted so many inappropriate analogies doesn't argue for your point, Denial.

Which god is this proof for, anyway?  I'm going to just go ahead and say Cthulu.

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

  
huwp



Posts: 172
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,08:38   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 18 2009,06:21)
It must be Jesus Raves.

Have you been reading too much Battlepope again?

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,08:52   

Daniel,


So you believe life was "Intelligently Designed", correct?  You do know your belief basically has at least four parts, and it actually has more, that you need to provide evidence for it don't you?

Assumption 1:  The Universe was designed.

Assumption 2:  The designer was intelligent.

Assumption 3 (unspoken):  There was one designer.

Assumption 4 (unspoken):  The designer is still around.

Assumption 5 (unspoken):  The designer has benign intentions.

There are more but I think you'll not be able to get past your first assumption.

Granted that the last 3 are your personal assumptions, you being a Christian and all, but even if you show evidence for 1 and 2, you still haven't shown that is was your god.

So let's start with 1, without it, 2 is pointless.

What evidence do you have FOR the Universe being designed?  Remember evidence against something else is not evidence for you.  Just because a man's last name is not Smith doesn't mean his last name is Brown.

I wait with baited breath to read your responses.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,09:03   

hey bait breath aren't we trying to get denial to talk about something substantive, not "Dude Look At Yer Hand"

I vote for Duh Flud.  And Nothing Else.  We need to get to the bottom of this happy horseshit, pronto, and Denial wants nothing more than tangential distractions about his opinions.  We have already determined that his opinions about this are worthless.  

But he has yet to share much of his opinion regarding the age of the earth and Duh Phlud.  That promises to be much more entertaining than his ideological pre-commitment to creation.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,09:35   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 18 2009,17:03)
hey bait breath aren't we trying to get denial to talk about something substantive, not "Dude Look At Yer Hand"

I vote for Duh Flud.  And Nothing Else.  We need to get to the bottom of this happy horseshit, pronto, and Denial wants nothing more than tangential distractions about his opinions.  We have already determined that his opinions about this are worthless.  

But he has yet to share much of his opinion regarding the age of the earth and Duh Phlud.  That promises to be much more entertaining than his ideological pre-commitment to creation.

He won't go there because he knows that it would prove conclusively beyond doubt that that he is batshit crazy.

Your mission should you decide to accept it is to goad him into talking about the flud.

This message will self destruct in 5 seconds..

...or not.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,09:48   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 18 2009,09:03)
hey bait breath aren't we trying to get denial to talk about something substantive, not "Dude Look At Yer Hand"

I vote for Duh Flud.  And Nothing Else.  We need to get to the bottom of this happy horseshit, pronto, and Denial wants nothing more than tangential distractions about his opinions.  We have already determined that his opinions about this are worthless.  

But he has yet to share much of his opinion regarding the age of the earth and Duh Phlud.  That promises to be much more entertaining than his ideological pre-commitment to creation.

I don't expect him to talk about anything substantial nor deep.

I'd be happy to hear his take on Noah's canoe and the flood but me thinks he's out of his depth in a puddle.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,10:05   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 18 2009,09:48)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 18 2009,09:03)
hey bait breath aren't we trying to get denial to talk about something substantive, not "Dude Look At Yer Hand"

I vote for Duh Flud.  And Nothing Else.  We need to get to the bottom of this happy horseshit, pronto, and Denial wants nothing more than tangential distractions about his opinions.  We have already determined that his opinions about this are worthless.  

But he has yet to share much of his opinion regarding the age of the earth and Duh Phlud.  That promises to be much more entertaining than his ideological pre-commitment to creation.

I don't expect him to talk about anything substantial nor deep.

I'd be happy to hear his take on Noah's canoe and the flood but me thinks he's out of his depth in a puddle.

Speaking of puddles, that will be his answer for the universe - just look at how well designed the universe is for human life (even though it isn't).  Like the old Douglas Adams bit with the puddle.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,10:08   

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 18 2009,10:05)
Speaking of puddles, that will be his answer for the universe - just look at how well designed the universe is for human life (even though it isn't).  Like the old Douglas Adams bit with the puddle.

Gotta love all of the ways the word "puddle" can be used.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,10:24   

cuddle puddle?

WERE WATCHING YOU, HOMO




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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,10:28   

If you want to play silly UPB games, what % of the universe by volume do we inhabit? Tiny, ergo universe not designed for life?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,10:33   

WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY OF THE SPERM AND EGG (THAT MADE YOUR WORTHLESS PANSY GIRLY MAN ASS) MEETING IN SUCH A VAST UNIVERSE.  I'LL ANSWER FOR YOU, HOMO, SINCE YOU ARE OUT OF HERE:  0.  YOU DON'T EXIST

dt

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,10:38   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 18 2009,10:33)
WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY OF THE SPERM AND EGG (THAT MADE YOUR WORTHLESS PANSY GIRLY MAN ASS) MEETING IN SUCH A VAST UNIVERSE.  I'LL ANSWER FOR YOU, HOMO, SINCE YOU ARE OUT OF HERE:  0.  YOU DON'T EXIST

dt

So how many eggs does a woman have?

How many sperm cells does a man produce over his lifetime?

How many generations back to the "flud".

What were the chances that your ancestors actually met?

What are the chances that those specific egg and sperm met to make you?

Doesn't that make you an impossibility as well?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
GCUGreyArea



Posts: 180
Joined: Sep. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,10:41   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 18 2009,10:33)
WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY OF THE SPERM AND EGG (THAT MADE YOUR WORTHLESS PANSY GIRLY MAN ASS) MEETING IN SUCH A VAST UNIVERSE.  I'LL ANSWER FOR YOU, HOMO, SINCE YOU ARE OUT OF HERE:  0.  YOU DON'T EXIST

dt

I did a rough calculation once for my own existence when looking into family history.  It turns out that according to Dembski the chances that all the little choices my ancestors made would actually result in ME were so small it must have meant that GODDIDIT.

Consequently I had to assume one of two things.  Either I am the second coming of Jebus or Dembski is uncommonly dense.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,10:53   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 18 2009,10:33)
WHAT IS THE PROBABILITY OF THE SPERM AND EGG (THAT MADE YOUR WORTHLESS PANSY GIRLY MAN ASS) MEETING IN SUCH A VAST UNIVERSE.  I'LL ANSWER FOR YOU, HOMO, SINCE YOU ARE OUT OF HERE:  0.  YOU DON'T EXIST

dt

BINDUN

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....;t=5393

HOMO

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 18 2009,11:30   

CITE YOUR SOURCES CHANCE WORSHIPPER

Quote
Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;
and before thou camest forth out of the womb
I sanctified thee,
and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.
Jer 1:5.
(KJV)


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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2009,18:50   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 17 2009,16:52)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 17 2009,17:44)
Apparently deadman, your definition of "pathway" is different from mine.  My definition involves laying out the intermediate steps.  Yours seems to only deal with the beginning and the end, IOW, as long as we have a possible beginning, and a known end, you seem to think we have a "pathway" between them.

Until we're on the same page on that issue, we're just going to argue in circles.

I'll agree that the scientific community has lots of "pathways" that meet your definition.  They have none (to my knowledge) that meet mine.

Apparently your notion of personal initiative in investigation of said pathway that might meet your criteria is minimal at best, Daniel.

Answer me honestly; have you even bothered, in this last month and more,  to read ( and I mean READ with comprehension, not "look at") the MULTIPLE papers I pointed to, Daniel?

If not, how can you even pretend to be honestly investigating anything at all? Is it your contention that someone here has to spoon feed you like you were a small brainless child?

I did deadman, but after you bailed on the discussion for awhile I had forgotten about them.  I've had time to refresh my memory a bit and I can give you my impressions (for what it's worth).  

One of my responses indicated that I thought they would hypothesize two or more whole genome duplications.  The reason I thought this was because I knew that it would require a lot of individual gene duplications to achieve the number of changes they hypothesize.  I was surprised to find that they did go with gene duplications after all.  I'm not sure how likely it is for so many genes to get duplicated and eventually code for proteins that work their way into new roles in critical pathways, but it is a hypothetical pathway.

It's just a matter of wait and see now.  I have faith that there are good scientists out there who will scrutinize this pathway for all of its strengths and weaknesses.  

If it stands up, I'm wrong.  Simple as that.

I'm hoping you're not naive enough to believe this hypothetical pathway is settled science though.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2009,18:57   

Quote
I'm hoping you're not naive enough to believe this hypothetical pathway is settled science though.


*squints* Sorry guys, my monitor is playing up. Is this thread 'argument from impossibility' or 'improbability'?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2009,19:09   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 18 2009,06:52)
Daniel,


So you believe life was "Intelligently Designed", correct?  You do know your belief basically has at least four parts, and it actually has more, that you need to provide evidence for it don't you?

Assumption 1:  The Universe was designed.

Assumption 2:  The designer was intelligent.

Assumption 3 (unspoken):  There was one designer.

Assumption 4 (unspoken):  The designer is still around.

Assumption 5 (unspoken):  The designer has benign intentions.

There are more but I think you'll not be able to get past your first assumption.

Granted that the last 3 are your personal assumptions, you being a Christian and all, but even if you show evidence for 1 and 2, you still haven't shown that is was your god.

So let's start with 1, without it, 2 is pointless.

What evidence do you have FOR the Universe being designed?  Remember evidence against something else is not evidence for you.  Just because a man's last name is not Smith doesn't mean his last name is Brown.

I wait with baited breath to read your responses.

I'm working from the assumption that the universe was designed, that life was designed, etc.  

If you want me to convince you, when it's pretty obvious that your mind's already made up, you're out of luck.

If you really want to know about God, ask him.  He has convinced me of his reality many times over, I'm fairly sure he'd do the same for you.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2009,19:21   

I DID, AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAID



get back to us when you get over your "assumptions".  Sounds like you need some ointment for that thing.

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2009,19:26   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,19:09)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 18 2009,06:52)
Daniel,


So you believe life was "Intelligently Designed", correct?  You do know your belief basically has at least four parts, and it actually has more, that you need to provide evidence for it don't you?

Assumption 1:  The Universe was designed.

Assumption 2:  The designer was intelligent.

Assumption 3 (unspoken):  There was one designer.

Assumption 4 (unspoken):  The designer is still around.

Assumption 5 (unspoken):  The designer has benign intentions.

There are more but I think you'll not be able to get past your first assumption.

Granted that the last 3 are your personal assumptions, you being a Christian and all, but even if you show evidence for 1 and 2, you still haven't shown that is was your god.

So let's start with 1, without it, 2 is pointless.

What evidence do you have FOR the Universe being designed?  Remember evidence against something else is not evidence for you.  Just because a man's last name is not Smith doesn't mean his last name is Brown.

I wait with baited breath to read your responses.
I'm working from the assumption that the universe was designed, that life was designed, etc.  

If you want me to convince you, when it's pretty obvious that your mind's already made up, you're out of luck.

If you really want to know about God, ask him.  He has convinced me of his reality many times over, I'm fairly sure he'd do the same for you.

Again, I'll ask you.

Show me your evidence that this Universe is designed.

As you're working from the assumption that the Universe is designed, you're going to have to show your evidence.  As to my state of mind, trust me it changes when I am presented with evidence.  Hell, I used to be a Republican.  Last year, I went stumping for Obama in Johnston County, NC.  If you know anything about Johnston County, you'll understand how much "fun" I had.

As for asking your "god", I have to talk to you as this entity is in your mind.

Tell me Daniel, do you believe that those who believe in Gaia or other deities that you don't believe in can also talk to their gods/goddesses?  If you think they are talking to "deceivers" ala Lilith, Satan, their own sub-consciousness, the Easter Bunny why are you not doing so?

See Daniel, for you to even be considered serious about the Universe being designed, you must show your evidence.  Otherwise, you see what you want to see and that is not evidence, that's masturbation.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2009,19:29   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 19 2009,19:21)
I DID, AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAID



get back to us when you get over your "assumptions".  Sounds like you need some ointment for that thing.

ALL HAIL CTHULHU!

When HE comes, I'll be eaten/completely destroyed first before ANY of you!

http://www.geocities.com/tribhis/cthulhutract.html

Yeah, I got that going for me!

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2009,19:30   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2009,19:57)
Quote
I'm hoping you're not naive enough to believe this hypothetical pathway is settled science though.


*squints* Sorry guys, my monitor is playing up. Is this thread 'argument from impossibility' or 'improbability'?

It's the "Argument from the Impossible." As in, "you're fucking impossible" {slams door}.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2009,19:34   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 19 2009,19:30)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 19 2009,19:57)
Quote
I'm hoping you're not naive enough to believe this hypothetical pathway is settled science though.
*squints* Sorry guys, my monitor is playing up. Is this thread 'argument from impossibility' or 'improbability'?
It's the "Argument from the Impossible." As in, "you are impossible."

No, it's an argument from WILLFUL Ignorance.

Ignorance is unavoidable but forgivable.  It is when you close your eyes, yell loudly, plug your ears and compartmentalize one's mind (tell me Daniel, your god.  He killed many children and innocent babies yet he allowed evil to persist in the world after he flooded it, what type of a monster do you worship?) that it is a crime.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2009,19:34   

Ooo Frank be go down Wendell an shit

I love Johnston county.  Fall line of piedmont is fantastic.  until the god damned yankees ruined it with their Atlanta 2.0

stripes still run up the neuse though, there is hope yet.  that sort of hope that eric pianka talks about.

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2009,19:38   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 19 2009,19:34)
Ooo Frank be go down Wendell an shit

I love Johnston county.  Fall line of piedmont is fantastic.  until the god damned yankees ruined it with their Atlanta 2.0

stripes still run up the neuse though, there is hope yet.  that sort of hope that eric pianka talks about.

Wendell is in Wake County.  And I'm not a Yanqui.  I'm from California, LA County.  That makes me, uh, confused.  I like JoCo as well.  My middle kid has a "JoCo Girl" sticker on her car!

As for da Braves, WTF?  They're a faux pas Baseball team.  The team around here is the Cleveland Indians.  Don't ask me why.

Besides, I'm a Carolina Hurricanes FAN.  I gots some season tickets.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2009,20:22   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,18:50)
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 17 2009,16:52)
   
Answer me honestly; have you even bothered, in this last month and more,  to read ( and I mean READ with comprehension, not "look at") the MULTIPLE papers I pointed to, Daniel?


I did deadman, but after you bailed on the discussion for awhile I had forgotten about them.  I've had time to refresh my memory a bit and I can give you my impressions (for what it's worth).

No. That's false, Daniel. I didn't "bail" on shit, liar-boy. See, you were supposed to read the papers and "get back" to me, remember? You wrote that, Daniel. Do I need to repost your own words?
Quote
Denial Smith wrote:

"I've just printed out the two papers you linked to and I'll get back to you when I'm done with them."


You failed to do that, Denial. If anyone "bailed"  -- it was you.

 

   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,18:50)
One of my responses indicated that I thought they would hypothesize two or more whole genome duplications.  The reason I thought this was because I knew that it would require a lot of individual gene duplications to achieve the number of changes they hypothesize.  I was surprised to find that they did go with gene duplications after all.  I'm not sure how likely it is for so many genes to get duplicated and eventually code for proteins that work their way into new roles in critical pathways, but it is a hypothetical pathway.


Again, another falsehood, Denial. You didn't "guess" shit --  You stated clearly that you'd read article abstracts that mentioned duplication, didn't you? Do you need to refresh your memory on what you've already written...again?

   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,18:50)
It's just a matter of wait and see now.  I have faith that there are good scientists out there who will scrutinize this pathway for all of its strengths and weaknesses.  

If it stands up, I'm wrong.  Simple as that.

I'm hoping you're not naive enough to believe this hypothetical pathway is settled science though.


AH, so you're relying on yet another "eternal regress" -- that's so cute.

You won't accept (despite there being literally dozens of papers on this topic ) that there is relative consensus on this evolutionary pathway ; regardless of how many people accept it you won't accept it.

But you said it was the scientific community that counted, yet you're switching back and forth faster than a pulsar.

Everything in science is tentative, Daniel. There are no immutable truths in science, period. That means that anything can be wrong...but to withold provisional acceptance of a pathway as scientifically agreed-upon at this time would require a perverse torturing of basic logic...yet there you are, Denial, perverse and lying, per usual.

At the very beginning of this little charade of yours, you specifically asked for an accepted evolutionary pathway for aminosynthesis, in E. coli. You flipped around the goalposts a few times and now you're still doing that...

The only difference is that now you've been given data (and there's a lot more where that came from) ...that indicates a valid evolutionary pathway for just what you asked for initially, and so now you're retreating back into your own personal god of the gaps barrier...you won't agree that the pathway is accepted, even if you haven't shown any competition for that theoretical pathway.

You won't do so ...only because you'll never accept that it meets your challenge.  

It has nothing at all to do with the scientific community judging it, Denial Smith : it has only to do with  a little duplicitous Denial.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2009,20:42   

By the way, Denial, don't even bother responding to me, seriously. You've seen fit to put others on "ignore," so eat a big helpin' of that yourself, fucknut.

You're a waste of time. Anyone as willing as you are to use any unethical method of weaseling/lying ....well, you're not worth my time.

Don't play martyr either, liar-boy...see, I actually DO have respect for some flavors of theism...just not the blatantly mendacious sort that you espouse.

You're just an exemplar of how easy it is for humans to bullshit themselves based on culturally-derived fantasies.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2009,21:33   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,19:09)
If you want me to convince you, when it's pretty obvious that your mind's already made up, you're out of luck.

Project much?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2009,21:40   

oops.  well anyway right thar on the border, aint it.  i can't remember what cities are in johnston county.  i'll have to google it.

i went to Brick U and we hunted down there some.  and i have some second cousins there.  

i'm amazed at the high density of white trash punks who think they are urban gangstas, in that part of the world.  it was an educationamal experience for this naive hillbilly.

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

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 19 2009,22:50   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 19 2009,19:29)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 19 2009,19:21)
I DID, AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAID



get back to us when you get over your "assumptions".  Sounds like you need some ointment for that thing.

ALL HAIL CTHULHU!

When HE comes, I'll be eaten/completely destroyed first before ANY of you!

http://www.geocities.com/tribhis/cthulhutract.html

Yeah, I got that going for me!

Infidel!!!!!!

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

So there.  You've got one more chance to get it correct.  Damn youngsters.  Can't even be bothered to learn an Elder Tongue any more...

In my day...(drifts off to sleep of fishy things)

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,05:36   

(to the tune of HAVAH NAGILA)
Ia, Ia, Cthulhu
Ia, Ia, Cthulhu
Ia, Ia, Cthulhu
And Yog-Sothoth...

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,08:27   

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 19 2009,22:50)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 19 2009,19:29)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 19 2009,19:21)
I DID, AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAID



get back to us when you get over your "assumptions".  Sounds like you need some ointment for that thing.
ALL HAIL CTHULHU!

When HE comes, I'll be eaten/completely destroyed first before ANY of you!

http://www.geocities.com/tribhis/cthulhutract.html

Yeah, I got that going for me!
Infidel!!!!!!

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

So there.  You've got one more chance to get it correct.  Damn youngsters.  Can't even be bothered to learn an Elder Tongue any more...

In my day...(drifts off to sleep of fishy things)

Expect a call from Nyarlathotep when you least expect it.

Blasphemer, your soul will rot in the orbit of Azathoth listening to the cacophony of the insane music playing Micheal Bolton's greatest hits for all eternity!

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,08:35   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 19 2009,17:26)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,19:09)
   
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 18 2009,06:52)
Daniel,


So you believe life was "Intelligently Designed", correct?  You do know your belief basically has at least four parts, and it actually has more, that you need to provide evidence for it don't you?

Assumption 1:  The Universe was designed.

Assumption 2:  The designer was intelligent.

Assumption 3 (unspoken):  There was one designer.

Assumption 4 (unspoken):  The designer is still around.

Assumption 5 (unspoken):  The designer has benign intentions.

There are more but I think you'll not be able to get past your first assumption.

Granted that the last 3 are your personal assumptions, you being a Christian and all, but even if you show evidence for 1 and 2, you still haven't shown that is was your god.

So let's start with 1, without it, 2 is pointless.

What evidence do you have FOR the Universe being designed?  Remember evidence against something else is not evidence for you.  Just because a man's last name is not Smith doesn't mean his last name is Brown.

I wait with baited breath to read your responses.
I'm working from the assumption that the universe was designed, that life was designed, etc.  

If you want me to convince you, when it's pretty obvious that your mind's already made up, you're out of luck.

If you really want to know about God, ask him.  He has convinced me of his reality many times over, I'm fairly sure he'd do the same for you.

Again, I'll ask you.

Show me your evidence that this Universe is designed.

As you're working from the assumption that the Universe is designed, you're going to have to show your evidence.  As to my state of mind, trust me it changes when I am presented with evidence.  Hell, I used to be a Republican.  Last year, I went stumping for Obama in Johnston County, NC.  If you know anything about Johnston County, you'll understand how much "fun" I had.

As for asking your "god", I have to talk to you as this entity is in your mind.

Tell me Daniel, do you believe that those who believe in Gaia or other deities that you don't believe in can also talk to their gods/goddesses?  If you think they are talking to "deceivers" ala Lilith, Satan, their own sub-consciousness, the Easter Bunny why are you not doing so?

See Daniel, for you to even be considered serious about the Universe being designed, you must show your evidence.  Otherwise, you see what you want to see and that is not evidence, that's masturbation.

If you're really interested in evidence (I don't believe you are), then read some of the many books written on the subject.  I'd recommend Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton.  Mike Gene's The Design Matrix is another excellent source for design evidence.  There are also books by a whole host of others that catalog very nicely some of the evidence pointing to design - if you're really interested.  

Personally, I think design is self-evident.  You know it when you see it.  I think you know that too.  You just don't want to know 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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,08:46   

It's refreshing to see this thread find its level. "I believe the universe is designed because it is self-evident. You don't because you don't want to."

IOW, "I believe it because I believe it. You don't because you don't"

And that's good enough for Daniel.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,08:47   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 19 2009,18:22)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,18:50)
       
Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 17 2009,16:52)
   
Answer me honestly; have you even bothered, in this last month and more,  to read ( and I mean READ with comprehension, not "look at") the MULTIPLE papers I pointed to, Daniel?


I did deadman, but after you bailed on the discussion for awhile I had forgotten about them.  I've had time to refresh my memory a bit and I can give you my impressions (for what it's worth).

No. That's false, Daniel. I didn't "bail" on shit, liar-boy. See, you were supposed to read the papers and "get back" to me, remember? You wrote that, Daniel. Do I need to repost your own words?
 
Quote
Denial Smith wrote:

"I've just printed out the two papers you linked to and I'll get back to you when I'm done with them."


You failed to do that, Denial. If anyone "bailed"  -- it was you.

 

     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,18:50)
One of my responses indicated that I thought they would hypothesize two or more whole genome duplications.  The reason I thought this was because I knew that it would require a lot of individual gene duplications to achieve the number of changes they hypothesize.  I was surprised to find that they did go with gene duplications after all.  I'm not sure how likely it is for so many genes to get duplicated and eventually code for proteins that work their way into new roles in critical pathways, but it is a hypothetical pathway.


Again, another falsehood, Denial. You didn't "guess" shit --  You stated clearly that you'd read article abstracts that mentioned duplication, didn't you? Do you need to refresh your memory on what you've already written...again?

     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,18:50)
It's just a matter of wait and see now.  I have faith that there are good scientists out there who will scrutinize this pathway for all of its strengths and weaknesses.  

If it stands up, I'm wrong.  Simple as that.

I'm hoping you're not naive enough to believe this hypothetical pathway is settled science though.


AH, so you're relying on yet another "eternal regress" -- that's so cute.

You won't accept (despite there being literally dozens of papers on this topic ) that there is relative consensus on this evolutionary pathway ; regardless of how many people accept it you won't accept it.

But you said it was the scientific community that counted, yet you're switching back and forth faster than a pulsar.

Everything in science is tentative, Daniel. There are no immutable truths in science, period. That means that anything can be wrong...but to withold provisional acceptance of a pathway as scientifically agreed-upon at this time would require a perverse torturing of basic logic...yet there you are, Denial, perverse and lying, per usual.

At the very beginning of this little charade of yours, you specifically asked for an accepted evolutionary pathway for aminosynthesis, in E. coli. You flipped around the goalposts a few times and now you're still doing that...

The only difference is that now you've been given data (and there's a lot more where that came from) ...that indicates a valid evolutionary pathway for just what you asked for initially, and so now you're retreating back into your own personal god of the gaps barrier...you won't agree that the pathway is accepted, even if you haven't shown any competition for that theoretical pathway.

You won't do so ...only because you'll never accept that it meets your challenge.  

It has nothing at all to do with the scientific community judging it, Denial Smith : it has only to do with  a little duplicitous Denial.

My argument has always been that such pathways will be found to be unworkable when looked at closely.  Calling that an "infinite regress" or "moving the goalposts" is a dishonest attempt to negate the crux of my argument.

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,08:52   

The guy is a self centered douche without the tiniest drop of scientific interest.

The only thing he cares about is what he "feels" is true, no matter how many evidence anyone will provide.

Let the bastard go evangelize somewhere else, or come back with REAL interest for the science behind his assumptions. Of course, it will be hard to achieve, because as soon as he gets into it at a level higher than kindergarden biology, his brain will start to melt due to fathomless paradoxes between reality and his bronze age beliefs.

And the next time he actualy tries to evangelize, I shall get very angry and blaspheme a lot!

Be warned!  :)

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,09:10   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 21 2009,08:35)
If you're really interested in evidence (I don't believe you are), then read some of the many books written on the subject.  I'd recommend Nature's Destiny by Michael Denton.  Mike Gene's The Design Matrix is another excellent source for design evidence.  There are also books by a whole host of others that catalog very nicely some of the evidence pointing to design - if you're really interested.  

Personally, I think design is self-evident.  You know it when you see it.  I think you know that too.  You just don't want to know it.

Books are not research.  Let me turn you on to other books to "expand your horizons".

"Chariots of the Gods"

"The Inner Goddess"

and MORE!

What research papers can you point to?  And know, design is not self evident.  If it were then everyone would see it.  One could same the same about you and not realizing the healing power of crystals.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,09:13   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 21 2009,08:47)
My argument has always been that such pathways will be found to be unworkable when looked at closely.  Calling that an "infinite regress" or "moving the goalposts" is a dishonest attempt to negate the crux of my argument.

And they have been.

Do you have any evidence that some scientists are not looking into this?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,09:25   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 21 2009,17:13)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 21 2009,08:47)
My argument has always been that such pathways will be found to be unworkable when looked at closely.  Calling that an "infinite regress" or "moving the goalposts" is a dishonest attempt to negate the crux of my argument.

And they have been.

Do you have any evidence that some scientists are not looking into this?

Absolutely!!!

They aren't reading Genesis, a quaint passion play / creation myth performed at foreskin collection centres in the Levant.

Written by a bunch of genocidal Camel herders, you know real science.

Something about a Frankinstein God burping into some dust.

Pretty basic really.

But you know it was true oh....BDE (Before Darwin's Era).



Tell us all about plate tectonics Daniel.

What do you do in that bovine feces lab precisely?

Clean the test tubes?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,09:30   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 17 2009,18:44)
I'll agree that the scientific community has lots of "pathways" that meet your definition.  They have none (to my knowledge) that meet mine.

Who gives a rat's ass about your definition again?

(Hint: Not the scientific community.)

Quote
Personally, I think design is self-evident.


see above.

Quote
My argument has always been that such pathways will be found to be unworkable when looked at closely.


ditto.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,09:33   

Well, snip my pickle and call me Shlomo!

You really think the TARD is going to answer anything that can expose him?

Let the douche go away. He won't be missed!

(hell, even FTK was funnier)

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,10:04   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 21 2009,08:27)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 19 2009,22:50)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 19 2009,19:29)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 19 2009,19:21)
I DID, AND THIS IS WHAT HE SAID



get back to us when you get over your "assumptions".  Sounds like you need some ointment for that thing.
ALL HAIL CTHULHU!

When HE comes, I'll be eaten/completely destroyed first before ANY of you!

http://www.geocities.com/tribhis/cthulhutract.html

Yeah, I got that going for me!
Infidel!!!!!!

Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

So there.  You've got one more chance to get it correct.  Damn youngsters.  Can't even be bothered to learn an Elder Tongue any more...

In my day...(drifts off to sleep of fishy things)

Expect a call from Nyarlathotep when you least expect it.

Blasphemer, your soul will rot in the orbit of Azathoth listening to the cacophony of the insane music playing Micheal Bolton's greatest hits for all eternity!

Michael Bolton!

Michael - freaking - Bolton!!!!!

No wonder he's insane.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,10:15   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 21 2009,08:46)
It's refreshing to see this thread find its level. "I believe the universe is designed because it is self-evident. You don't because you don't want to."

IOW, "I believe it because I believe it. You don't because you don't"

And that's good enough for Daniel.

For me, I find the "self-evident, you know it when you see it" line to be the best.  I look up at a cloud and see a bunny rabbit, so I know it has to be designed, but I don't know if that is just meant to entertain me, or if it is telling me to worship Hopper, the God of Rabbits (Far May He Leap).

How come it all boils down to "you'll know it when you see/hear/feel it"?  

I do like the first review of "The Design Matrix" (isn't Mike Gene a DI-Fellow?).  Any book that uses the Face on Mars to attempt to show design has CRACKPOT written all over it, in letters bigger and bolder than that.  

Daniel - do you believe that the Face on Mars is real?

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,10:34   

I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused.

Daniel. Are we or are we not going to talk about evidence for ye olde fuld?

I think that's what we're all waiting for now. Everything else is a bust!

If it "looks like there was a flood to you" please do tell what it is you are looking at!

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,11:01   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 21 2009,18:34)
I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused.

Daniel. Are we or are we not going to talk about evidence for ye olde fuld?

I think that's what we're all waiting for now. Everything else is a bust!

If it "looks like there was a flood to you" please do tell what it is you are looking at!

Yeah a lengthy disertation on the Grand Canyon and it's age I think is order here don't you Daniel?

Plus any stories on good works by your church group would help.

Any worthy causes to contribute to?

Any bargain swamp real estate for sale?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,12:59   

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 21 2009,11:01)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 21 2009,18:34)
I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused.

Daniel. Are we or are we not going to talk about evidence for ye olde fuld?

I think that's what we're all waiting for now. Everything else is a bust!

If it "looks like there was a flood to you" please do tell what it is you are looking at!
Yeah a lengthy disertation on the Grand Canyon and it's age I think is order here don't you Daniel?

Plus any stories on good works by your church group would help.

Any worthy causes to contribute to?

Any bargain swamp real estate for sale?

"Works"?  Daniel doesn't strike me as being Catholic.  He wants the person who pontificates to him and tells him what passages in the bible mean to be closer.  Yeah, closer.

Closer, closer.  Getting there, oh that's it.  To the right, a little more lub.....

Um, where was I?  Oh yeah, Daniel.

Daniel I'll bet good $$$$ on is an Evangelical Protestant and we all know that Martin Luther ripped out "Works" as a way for salvation when he re-wrote the Bible.  As one of the signs on a farm not too far from my house states, "By faith alone, not "works", are yea saved".

Anytime Daniel you want to discuss the Grand Canyon vs the trench that blew a hole in the soft ash after Mout St. Helen's, I'd love to chat with you about it.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,15:07   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 21 2009,12:59)
Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 21 2009,11:01)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 21 2009,18:34)
I'm sorry, I'm a bit confused.

Daniel. Are we or are we not going to talk about evidence for ye olde fuld?

I think that's what we're all waiting for now. Everything else is a bust!

If it "looks like there was a flood to you" please do tell what it is you are looking at!
Yeah a lengthy disertation on the Grand Canyon and it's age I think is order here don't you Daniel?

Plus any stories on good works by your church group would help.

Any worthy causes to contribute to?

Any bargain swamp real estate for sale?
"Works"?  Daniel doesn't strike me as being Catholic.  He wants the person who pontificates to him and tells him what passages in the bible mean to be closer.  Yeah, closer.

Closer, closer.  Getting there, oh that's it.  To the right, a little more lub.....

Um, where was I?  Oh yeah, Daniel.

Daniel I'll bet good $$$$ on is an Evangelical Protestant and we all know that Martin Luther ripped out "Works" as a way for salvation when he re-wrote the Bible.  As one of the signs on a farm not too far from my house states, "By faith alone, not "works", are yea saved".

Anytime Daniel you want to discuss the Grand Canyon vs the trench that blew a hole in the soft ash after Mout St. Helen's, I'd love to chat with you about it.

My apologies to Daniel.

I should have never insinuated he was/is gay.

However he should still be trying to prove he's NOT a child molester.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,15:30   

As relevant today as the day I made it.



--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 21 2009,21:37   

pppfffffftttttt!

I HOPE YOU HAVE SOME KNICKERS UNDER THAT DRESS YOU'RE WEARING.

I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING MORE GAY THAN A BUNCH OF GUYS SITTING AROUND IN A BIBLE CLASS, HOMO!

;)

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2009,08:22   

Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 21 2009,08:15)
I do like the first review of "The Design Matrix" (isn't Mike Gene a DI-Fellow?).  Any book that uses the Face on Mars to attempt to show design has CRACKPOT written all over it, in letters bigger and bolder than that.  

Daniel - do you believe that the Face on Mars is real?

The "first review" was obviously skewed.  The Face on Mars was used as an example of something that looks designed at a distance but upon closer examination fails the test.  It is the direct opposite of what we find in life.

In life we find things like the ATP-synthase enzyme which utilizes proton flow, (across the mitochondria membrane), to turn an ATP synthesizing "vane pump" (which grabs ADP, makes one revolution and spits out ATP), thus combining two necessary and useful functions into one multi-protein unit.  This is no Face on Mars, this is design of the highest quality.

Then again I doubt you're really interested.

--------------
"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: Mar. 22 2009,08:40   

Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 19 2009,18:22)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,18:50)
It's just a matter of wait and see now.  I have faith that there are good scientists out there who will scrutinize this pathway for all of its strengths and weaknesses.  

If it stands up, I'm wrong.  Simple as that.

I'm hoping you're not naive enough to believe this hypothetical pathway is settled science though.


AH, so you're relying on yet another "eternal regress" -- that's so cute.

You won't accept (despite there being literally dozens of papers on this topic ) that there is relative consensus on this evolutionary pathway ; regardless of how many people accept it you won't accept it.

But you said it was the scientific community that counted, yet you're switching back and forth faster than a pulsar.

Everything in science is tentative, Daniel. There are no immutable truths in science, period. That means that anything can be wrong...but to withold provisional acceptance of a pathway as scientifically agreed-upon at this time would require a perverse torturing of basic logic...yet there you are, Denial, perverse and lying, per usual.

At the very beginning of this little charade of yours, you specifically asked for an accepted evolutionary pathway for aminosynthesis, in E. coli. You flipped around the goalposts a few times and now you're still doing that...

The only difference is that now you've been given data (and there's a lot more where that came from) ...that indicates a valid evolutionary pathway for just what you asked for initially, and so now you're retreating back into your own personal god of the gaps barrier...you won't agree that the pathway is accepted, even if you haven't shown any competition for that theoretical pathway.

You won't do so ...only because you'll never accept that it meets your challenge.  

It has nothing at all to do with the scientific community judging it, Denial Smith : it has only to do with  a little duplicitous Denial.

Again deadman, a consensus that a hypothetical pathway "may have been" or "was probably" correct does not equal settled science.  These intermediate pathways have to be verified to actually work in real organisms.  An isolated pathway may work on paper, but what affect does it have on the organism?  How are other systems and pathways affected?  They have to each be verified attainable via some undirected mutational mechanism.  If you change a protein's sequence, it may no longer fold into a useful shape.  What specific sequence changes occured?  If you insert an enzyme into a functioning pathway, the consequences could be disastrous.  You are altering biochemical reactions.  These must be calculated.  Is the new enzyme regulated?  How?  How does that regulation affect the rest of the pathway?  There are many other variables to consider as well.

All of these things require experimental verification deadman.  That's why I said we must wait and see.

--------------
"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: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2009,09:20   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 22 2009,09:40)
Again deadman, a consensus that a hypothetical pathway "may have been" or "was probably" correct does not equal settled science.  These intermediate pathways have to be verified to actually work in real organisms.  An isolated pathway may work on paper, but what affect does it have on the organism?  How are other systems and pathways affected?  They have to each be verified attainable via some undirected mutational mechanism.  If you change a protein's sequence, it may no longer fold into a useful shape.  What specific sequence changes occured?  If you insert an enzyme into a functioning pathway, the consequences could be disastrous.  You are altering biochemical reactions.  These must be calculated.  Is the new enzyme regulated?  How?  How does that regulation affect the rest of the pathway?  There are many other variables to consider as well.

All of these things require experimental verification deadman.  That's why I said we must wait and see.

Alternatively, Deadman, you can assert that the correctness of the pathway is self-evident.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2009,09:32   

So I take it that you concede defeat on Noah, Daniel?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2009,10:03   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 22 2009,08:22)
Quote (Badger3k @ Mar. 21 2009,08:15)
I do like the first review of "The Design Matrix" (isn't Mike Gene a DI-Fellow?).  Any book that uses the Face on Mars to attempt to show design has CRACKPOT written all over it, in letters bigger and bolder than that.  

Daniel - do you believe that the Face on Mars is real?

The "first review" was obviously skewed.  The Face on Mars was used as an example of something that looks designed at a distance but upon closer examination fails the test.  It is the direct opposite of what we find in life.

In life we find things like the ATP-synthase enzyme which utilizes proton flow, (across the mitochondria membrane), to turn an ATP synthesizing "vane pump" (which grabs ADP, makes one revolution and spits out ATP), thus combining two necessary and useful functions into one multi-protein unit.  This is no Face on Mars, this is design of the highest quality.

Then again I doubt you're really interested.

I'm interested in reality, but you have consistently failed to show that your assumptions are reality.  If you want to state that this enzyme is designed, you need to show evidence, not say "I can't see how it could have evolved."

But, then, you know all this.  You just refuse to accept it.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2009,10:30   

I'm no chemist, nor am I a biologist but as the Daniels of the world require, nay DEMAND, workable pathways what do we know?

But then again Daniel, we'd like to hear voice recordings of Jesus and his followers, not "written statements made by eye witnesses".  As the UD crowd continues to use this mantra of "What Forensics use", any decent one will tell you physical evidence like you want is far more accurate than "eyewitness testimony".

So could you produce the same evidence about your god as you demad from us?

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 22 2009,10:33   

Quote
The "first review" was obviously skewed.  The Face on Mars was used as an example of something that looks designed at a distance but upon closer examination fails the test.  It is the direct opposite of what we find in life.

As is your opinion skewed.

You fail to see the difference: We KNOW that if we find a face on Mars, it’s GOT TO BE DESIGNED, somebody would have had to MAKE it there. Because we KNOW about faces, have known for a long time, we have a lot of experience with faces; they are very common here on Earth. (You don’t mind some caps, do you?)

OTOH, we do NOT know anything about designed enzymes. Therefore we have no reason to believe they are designed. NO previous knowledge or evidence about DESIGNED enzymes. Therefore, since we know nothing about designed enzymes in nature the only option available is that they are not designed.

But we are always willing to look at evidence. You got some to show?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2009,04:29   

Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 22 2009,16:30)
I'm no chemist, nor am I a biologist...[SNIP]

Ah but do you play one on television?

Louis

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2009,06:34   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 23 2009,04:29)
Quote (FrankH @ Mar. 22 2009,16:30)
I'm no chemist, nor am I a biologist...[SNIP]
Ah but do you play one on television?

Louis

Nope, I play with power tools and find new and ever more interesting ways to hurt myself.

More power, arrgghhh, arrgghh.....

(which basically sums up my skill with them, there's a reason I got out of construction and wen back to school)

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2009,07:52   

frank you are basically a marine biologist then.

daniel, no one wants to hear anything from you BUT duh flud.  don't disappoint, dearie

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2009,11:13   

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 22 2009,08:33)
Quote
The "first review" was obviously skewed.  The Face on Mars was used as an example of something that looks designed at a distance but upon closer examination fails the test.  It is the direct opposite of what we find in life.

As is your opinion skewed.

You fail to see the difference: We KNOW that if we find a face on Mars, it’s GOT TO BE DESIGNED, somebody would have had to MAKE it there. Because we KNOW about faces, have known for a long time, we have a lot of experience with faces; they are very common here on Earth. (You don’t mind some caps, do you?)

OTOH, we do NOT know anything about designed enzymes. Therefore we have no reason to believe they are designed. NO previous knowledge or evidence about DESIGNED enzymes. Therefore, since we know nothing about designed enzymes in nature the only option available is that they are not designed.

But we are always willing to look at evidence. You got some to show?

So all faces are designed then?

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

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2009,12:02   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 23 2009,11:13)
Quote (Quack @ Mar. 22 2009,08:33)
Quote
The "first review" was obviously skewed.  The Face on Mars was used as an example of something that looks designed at a distance but upon closer examination fails the test.  It is the direct opposite of what we find in life.
As is your opinion skewed.

You fail to see the difference: We KNOW that if we find a face on Mars, it’s GOT TO BE DESIGNED, somebody would have had to MAKE it there. Because we KNOW about faces, have known for a long time, we have a lot of experience with faces; they are very common here on Earth. (You don’t mind some caps, do you?)

OTOH, we do NOT know anything about designed enzymes. Therefore we have no reason to believe they are designed. NO previous knowledge or evidence about DESIGNED enzymes. Therefore, since we know nothing about designed enzymes in nature the only option available is that they are not designed.

But we are always willing to look at evidence. You got some to show?
So all faces are designed then?

Let me try this one more time to chat with you and explain things.

You see design, I see patterns.  They are the same thing but they cause different reactions in us both.  You want to see your god in everything you do.  for myself, I don't believe in any god (I don't disbelieve in gods I just haven't seen a need for any of them).  So of course we will look at it differently, much like a glass half full/empty thing.

When you look at the rock formations in "Arches National Park", do you see your god's handiwork in it?  I don't.  I understand that the rocks are actually made out of different types on minerals.  Some are hard and resilient.  Others firm and tough but can be worn down when put under pressure.  Others are soft and crumble at a touch.

So these formations are the patterns made by the various conglomerations of the different rocks and their resiliency to erosion.  There is no "design" there, just patterns.

If you can't fathom that then don't read on as it will only confuse you.

Still here?  Good.

Now let's go deeper.  Let's go to something we can't see but have tons of evidence for, namely the structure of atoms.  Do you think that atoms were "designed" to fit together as they do?  Or are you like me and think that they form covalent or ionic bonds due to there structure?  Does Carbon form into long and complex polymer molecules due to chemical properties or that it was designed to do just that?

Now that is a primer on how you see design and I see naturalistic patterns.  Be careful about saying, "That's how my god did it" as each time we look we get a little bit deeper into why and how it is all done.  If we were just to take "god did it", we'd still be living in caves and throwing rocks at the moon.

Do you see where this is going?  If you can understand that, I'll write more.

You see god, I see pattern and we're looking at the same thing.  Again, why is your god better than say, Osiris?  After all, a lot of your god's reported history seems to have been taken from the history of Osiris.

--------------
Marriage is not a lifetime commitment, it's a life sentence!

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2009,19:30   

Quote (Quack @ Mar. 22 2009,08:33)
You fail to see the difference: We KNOW that if we find a face on Mars, it’s GOT TO BE DESIGNED, somebody would have had to MAKE it there. Because we KNOW about faces, have known for a long time, we have a lot of experience with faces; they are very common here on Earth. (You don’t mind some caps, do you?)

OTOH, we do NOT know anything about designed enzymes. Therefore we have no reason to believe they are designed. NO previous knowledge or evidence about DESIGNED enzymes. Therefore, since we know nothing about designed enzymes in nature the only option available is that they are not designed.

But we are always willing to look at evidence. You got some to show?

If I may expand on this a bit...

You say "We KNOW that if we find a face on Mars, it’s GOT TO BE DESIGNED"

So how do we KNOW such a thing is designed?  (You don't mind if I use caps too?  Good.)  Well we KNOW because: "we KNOW about faces, have known for a long time, we have a lot of experience with faces; they are very common here on Earth."

So let me get this straight...  With NO DIRECT KNOWLEDGE of any intelligent lifeforms on Mars, and based SOLELY on the fact that it RESEMBLES what man (a known designer) has made - we suddenly KNOW that it too MUST BE designed?

Interesting.  Not only are you willing to cede design with such a low threshold of evidence, you are also quick to posit A DESIGNER: "somebody would have had to MAKE it there".  Don't we have to have direct KNOWLEDGE of a designer BEFORE we can propose design?  Or doesn't the same principle apply to a face on Mars as to enzymes?  

Apparently not.  Apparently something as simple as a face on Mars would cause you to RULE OUT NATURAL FORCES and CONVINCE you that some UNKNOWN designer created it, while something as complex as life (you know that we find things in life that resemble pumps and motors, electrical wiring, plumbing, assembly lines, CODED INFORMATION, computation and logic processing, and a whole host of other things that man has created - right?) fails to impress design upon you.    

I find the double standard very telling.

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

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2009,19:55   

oh Danny boy digs his hole ever deeper:

Quote
I find the double standard very telling.


Kettle, meet pot.

Keep up the tard-flow, Daniel, you're very good at it.   :)

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2009,20:06   

Quote (jeffox @ Mar. 23 2009,19:55)
oh Danny boy digs his hole ever deeper

But notice, onlookers, that he is digging laterally. The original hole, containing nothing but pure tard nuggets at the bottom, is being widened as he searches ever more desperately for something, anything, that can distract us from his previous inabilities to answer questions, acknowledge his losses, or discuss his position logically.

Carry on, Daniel. It's sick and twisted entertainment for us here, but it is entertainment for sure!

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2009,20:07   

Quote (jeffox @ Mar. 23 2009,20:55)
oh Danny boy digs his hole ever deeper:

Quote
I find the double standard very telling.


Kettle, meet pot.

Keep up the tard-flow, Daniel, you're very good at it.   :)

Pyroclastic

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2009,20:18   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 23 2009,20:30)
Apparently not.  Apparently something as simple as a face on Mars would cause you to RULE OUT NATURAL FORCES and CONVINCE you that some UNKNOWN designer created it, while something as complex as life (you know that we find things in life that resemble pumps and motors, electrical wiring, plumbing, assembly lines, CODED INFORMATION, computation and logic processing, and a whole host of other things that man has created - right?) fails to impress design upon you.    

I find the double standard very telling.

The form of a human face found on Mars (say, carved into a mountainside) would of necessity be a representation. As such it would be characterized by "borrowed" intentionality (intentionality in Brentano's sense*). The only plausible causal story for the appearance of such a representation on Mars would be an agent capable of of such representation and such intentionality. Therefore, we are already some distance to inferring an agent much like ourselves, capable of sophisticated representation.  

Complex biological phenomena on earth - including human faces themselves, as well as the other phenomena you allude to - are not representations, however complex they otherwise may be (sometimes even themselves capable of intentionality and representation). Therefore an inference to representational agency and intentionality is not compelled, or warranted. Rather, we have a causal account of the origins of such complexity that functions without representation/intentionality.

*Daniel: Brentano's intentionality is not equivalent to "intentions" in the colloquial sense. It refers to the special quality of some physical systems (such as human brains) that they can have states that are "about" other states of affairs in the world - essentially, representation. This is "Brentano's intentionality."

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 23 2009,21:40   

Quote
Apparently something as simple as a face on Mars would cause you to RULE OUT NATURAL FORCES and CONVINCE you that some UNKNOWN designer created it, while something as complex as life (you know that we find things in life that resemble pumps and motors, electrical wiring, plumbing, assembly lines, CODED INFORMATION, computation and logic processing, and a whole host of other things that man has created - right?) fails to impress design upon you.


It's really not that hard to understand. If an inanimate object has the shape of a face to a very high precision, it is unlikely to have been formed by geologic processes (e.g., erosion), so if found it has a high probability of having been built by something or somebody familiar with faces.

Living things, on the other hand, aren't built by anything outside of themselves - they build themselves, from the inside, using materials collected from their surroundings, and aside from cases in which our technology is a deliberate copy of something seen in living things, they don't resemble in detail anything known to have been deliberately built.

Henry

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2009,00:05   

whoaaaa man i just thought of something....  what if it IS a face already and we just don't recognize it because it is not a face like our faces, man.  just imagine that brah

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2009,06:26   

I don't think science is your cup of tea; As I've told you before, theology might be a more rewarding pastime for you:
 
Quote
Elaine Pagels: Much of what passes for "historical" interpretation of Paul and for "objective" analysis of his letters can be traced to the second-century heresiologists. If the apostle were so unequivocally anti-Gnostic, how could the Gnostics claim him as their great Pneumatic teacher? How could they say they are following his example when they offer secret teaching of wisdom and Gnosis "to the initiates?" How could they claim his resurrection theology as the source for their own, citing his words as decisive evidence against the ecclesiastical doctrine of bodily resurrection?”

It seem you have a lot to learn, not only do Pagels point to something of great importance; my skepticism about the historical Jesus is not my own invention; it is older than the Bible itself and have many 'precursors':
Quote
In the fourth century an anonymous author tells us that Christians and followers of the Mystery godman Attis were both struck by the remarkable coincidence between the death and resurrection of their respective deities. This gave rise to bitter controversy between the adherents of the rival religions. The Pagans contended that the resurrection of Christ was a spurious imitation of the resurrection of Attis and the Christians that the resurrection of Attis was a diabolical counterfeit of the resurrection of Christ.

The Megalensia was a spring festival in the Mysteries of Attis which, like Easter, lasted for three days. During this time the myth of Attis was performed as a passion play, just as the story of Jesus was performed as a passion play in the Middle Ages.
It is a completely remarkable fact, however, that Paul says nothing at all about the historical Jesus! He is concerned only with the crucified and resurrected Christ, whose importance is entirely mystical. Paul makes it clear that he never met a historical Jesus. He writes: "Neither did I receive the Gospel from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ." Paul doesn't mention Jerusalem or Pilate either. Indeed, as we shall explore in more detail later, he declares that Jesus was crucified at the instigation of the "Archons" or "rulers of the age" - demonic powers that are talked of by the Gnostics!


--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2009,06:51   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Mar. 24 2009,02:06)
Quote (jeffox @ Mar. 23 2009,19:55)
oh Danny boy digs his hole ever deeper

But notice, onlookers, that he is digging laterally. The original hole, containing nothing but pure tard nuggets at the bottom, is being widened as he searches ever more desperately for something, anything, that can distract us from his previous inabilities to answer questions, acknowledge his losses, or discuss his position logically.

Carry on, Daniel. It's sick and twisted entertainment for us here, but it is entertainment for sure!

You might be amused but....



We Are Not Amused.

It's getting pathological. Denial at Denial's level isn't healthy. I'm thinking he enjoys being beaten like a quadriplegic five year old in a UFC match. I'm not sure that encouraging that is....well...clean. ;-)

Louis

ETA: Sorry the whole post was just an excuse to use Queen Victoria at her most Imperial (and imperious).

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2009,08:36   

Quote
It is a completely remarkable fact, however, that Paul says nothing at all about the historical Jesus! He is concerned only with the crucified and resurrected Christ, whose importance is entirely mystical. Paul makes it clear that he never met a historical Jesus. He writes: "Neither did I receive the Gospel from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ." Paul doesn't mention Jerusalem or Pilate either. Indeed, as we shall explore in more detail later, he declares that Jesus was crucified at the instigation of the "Archons" or "rulers of the age" - demonic powers that are talked of by the Gnostics!


Indeed too there is some doubt that Paul existed.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2009,13:47   

Louis wrote:

Quote
ETA: Sorry the whole post was just an excuse to use Queen Victoria at her most Imperial (and imperious).


HMTQ is HAWT

:O      :)

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2009,14:11   

Quote
Indeed too there is some doubt that Paul existed.


That's called wishful thinking.

Isn't there an old saying that Catholicism stems from Paul's triumph over James, and Protestantism stems from Paul's triumph over Jesus?

Edit: Link

http://www.wordwiz72.com/paul.html

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2009,15:33   

What if it turned out upon closer inspection that the Cydonia face really DID look designed?

Would the ID crowd still be denying that the obvious next question is "who was the designer?"

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2009,15:58   

Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 24 2009,14:33)
Would the ID crowd still be denying that the obvious next question is "who was the designer?"

Ray Walston?

  
mitschlag



Posts: 236
Joined: Sep. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2009,16:41   

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 24 2009,06:51)
 
You might be amused but....



We Are Not Amused.


ETA: Sorry the whole post was just an excuse to use Queen Victoria at her most Imperial (and imperious).

What a babe.  No wonder Albert couldn't ....

--------------
"You can establish any “rule” you like if you start with the rule and then interpret the evidence accordingly." - George Gaylord Simpson (1902-1984)

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2009,17:02   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 24 2009,16:58)
Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 24 2009,14:33)
Would the ID crowd still be denying that the obvious next question is "who was the designer?"

Ray Walston?

We'd be looking for an interior designer, wouldn't we?

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2009,19:04   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 23 2009,19:40)
     
Quote
Apparently something as simple as a face on Mars would cause you to RULE OUT NATURAL FORCES and CONVINCE you that some UNKNOWN designer created it, while something as complex as life (you know that we find things in life that resemble pumps and motors, electrical wiring, plumbing, assembly lines, CODED INFORMATION, computation and logic processing, and a whole host of other things that man has created - right?) fails to impress design upon you.


It's really not that hard to understand. If an inanimate object has the shape of a face to a very high precision, it is unlikely to have been formed by geologic processes (e.g., erosion), so if found it has a high probability of having been built by something or somebody familiar with faces.

So if something is "unlikely to have been formed by [natural processes]", it's probably designed?

How do you test this likelihood?

You know as well as I do that geological forces are capable of producing something that closely resembles a face - even to a high precision.  Wind, rain, erosion, earthquakes, floods - if combined in just the right mixture - could theoretically produce something extremely face-like.  So how do you know when to rule out natural forces?  What's the threshold?  

Or is it self-evident - as in "you know it when you see 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

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2009,19:13   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 24 2009,17:04)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 23 2009,19:40)
       
Quote
Apparently something as simple as a face on Mars would cause you to RULE OUT NATURAL FORCES and CONVINCE you that some UNKNOWN designer created it, while something as complex as life (you know that we find things in life that resemble pumps and motors, electrical wiring, plumbing, assembly lines, CODED INFORMATION, computation and logic processing, and a whole host of other things that man has created - right?) fails to impress design upon you.


It's really not that hard to understand. If an inanimate object has the shape of a face to a very high precision, it is unlikely to have been formed by geologic processes (e.g., erosion), so if found it has a high probability of having been built by something or somebody familiar with faces.

So if something is "unlikely to have been formed by [natural processes]", it's probably designed?

How do you test this likelihood?

You know as well as I do that geological forces are capable of producing something that closely resembles a face - even to a high precision.  Wind, rain, erosion, earthquakes, floods - if combined in just the right mixture - could theoretically produce something extremely face-like.  So how do you know when to rule out natural forces?  What's the threshold?  

Or is it self-evident - as in "you know it when you see it"?

Excellent questions, Daniel! I seem to have heard them asked somewhere before.

BTW, I'm curious to know what you think would be the next question to be asked if the Cydonia face (upon close inspection) still appeared to be designed?

Would it be: "how does its information content relate to the universal probability bound?" or would it be "who designed the face?".

(Or something else entirely?)

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
SoonerintheBluegrass



Posts: 39
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2009,21:44   

From a lurker . . .

Now about this Flood thingy.  I thought you were going to talk about that, Denial?  

Seriously, I can't speak for all lurkers, but this one is really waiting for a discussion of Noah and his Amazing Ark.  

Just think of how much righteous wood you'll be getting when you lay down that evidence filled smack-down on all these godless types (and the theists here, too, who clearly don't undertand the Bible as you do)!

--------------
"And heaven will smell like the airport
But I may not get there to prove it
So let's not waste our time thinking how that ain't fair."

Neko Case

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2009,22:12   

Quote
You know as well as I do that geological forces are capable of producing something that closely resembles a face - even to a high precision.  Wind, rain, erosion, earthquakes, floods - if combined in just the right mixture - could theoretically produce something extremely face-like.  So how do you know when to rule out natural forces?  What's the threshold?


1) Calculate the odds of the particular formation being produced by erosion, etc.

2) Look for something or somebody with abilities, motivation, or both, for producing the formation in question.

3) Look for debris (or alterations in any nearby objects) of the sort that might be expected to be left by any engineering processes that might have been used to make the formation.

You can't fully rule out natural processes, since there might be processes you didn't know about; establishing a strongly suspected engineer or engineering method is the most reliable way to gain confidence in that hypothesis.

Another factor is whether the formation is unique or one of many; if the region is littered with them that's also a clue.

Not that any of that has anything to do with reliability of evolution theory, since rock formations (whether formed by erosion or deliberate sculpting) are built from outside; since living things reproduce themselves any analogy there is too weak to be particularly useful.

Henry

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 24 2009,22:55   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 24 2009,00:05)
whoaaaa man i just thought of something....  what if it IS a face already and we just don't recognize it because it is not a face like our faces, man.  just imagine that brah

i reiterate...

until you can rule this out all this probability business is blowing smoke.

how do you know mars is not a face already?

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2009,04:21   

Quote
Not that any of that has anything to do with reliability of evolution theory, since rock formations (whether formed by erosion or deliberate sculpting) are built from outside; since living things reproduce themselves any analogy there is too weak to be particularly useful.


Right, many aspects of manmade or "Intelligently Designed" vs. natural objects are of a nature that makes the design inference quite weak - if at all applicable. But creationists put a lot of effort into such speculation; at t.o. a Sean Pitman has been going on for years about a perfect cube of some sort and how to determine if designed or not - or something like that. I find it totally uninteresting and irrelevant.

Besides, from our experience with Intelligent Design we know that telltale signs of both the production process and the identity of the designer-implementer seems always to be present.

Crystal skulls

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2009,07:49   

There are so many places this could go, but I thought here would be a good start:



Louis

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2009,18:07   

Quote (Tom Ames @ Mar. 24 2009,17:13)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 24 2009,17:04)
     
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 23 2009,19:40)
             
Quote
Apparently something as simple as a face on Mars would cause you to RULE OUT NATURAL FORCES and CONVINCE you that some UNKNOWN designer created it, while something as complex as life (you know that we find things in life that resemble pumps and motors, electrical wiring, plumbing, assembly lines, CODED INFORMATION, computation and logic processing, and a whole host of other things that man has created - right?) fails to impress design upon you.


It's really not that hard to understand. If an inanimate object has the shape of a face to a very high precision, it is unlikely to have been formed by geologic processes (e.g., erosion), so if found it has a high probability of having been built by something or somebody familiar with faces.

So if something is "unlikely to have been formed by [natural processes]", it's probably designed?

How do you test this likelihood?

You know as well as I do that geological forces are capable of producing something that closely resembles a face - even to a high precision.  Wind, rain, erosion, earthquakes, floods - if combined in just the right mixture - could theoretically produce something extremely face-like.  So how do you know when to rule out natural forces?  What's the threshold?  

Or is it self-evident - as in "you know it when you see it"?

Excellent questions, Daniel! I seem to have heard them asked somewhere before.

BTW, I'm curious to know what you think would be the next question to be asked if the Cydonia face (upon close inspection) still appeared to be designed?

Would it be: "how does its information content relate to the universal probability bound?" or would it be "who designed the face?".

(Or something else entirely?)

It'd definitely be the latter.  (In spite of all the rationalized back-tracking now being presented here).

The truth is, there'd be little discussion of whether or not natural forces created the face - especially if it turned out to be fairly detailed.  I'm willing to bet that the scientific community would readily accept design and launch right into a search for clues as to the designer's identity.

And that's my point.  

All of these swell folks here have berated me for suggesting that life was designed.  They say things like "you can't compare life to man's designs because we know about man, we don't know anything about any "god"".  Yet, they immediately and without question are willing to posit a designer for a theoretical face on Mars!

The argument still applies boys!!  We know nothing of any alien race on Mars, but - one rock face later - suddenly there "has to be" a designer??

It's much easier to imagine a scenario under which natural forces could make a realistic looking face than it is to imagine a scenario where nature makes the very first self-replicating molecules, the very first enzyme, the first DNA, or any one of a multitude of life's essentials.  But, because life would've had to be created by God, rather than just an alien race on a nearby planet, (and because that makes them 'uncomfortable') these 'blind guides' refuse to consider the possibility of a designer for life.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2009,18:14   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 25 2009,18:07)
these 'blind guides' refuse to consider the possibility of a designer for life.

Aright.

Let's consider it.

Now what?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2009,18:28   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 25 2009,18:07)
The argument still applies boys!!  We know nothing of any alien race on Mars, but - one rock face later - suddenly there "has to be" a designer??

Daniel,
If we know nothing of any alien race on Mars how is it that we know this "rock face" looks like a face at all?

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2009,18:28   

Considering a concept is not the same thing as having evidence for that concept.

Pointing out the absence of verifiable evidence for a concept is also not the same thing as refusing to consider that concept - especially among people who already have considered it, and concluded that there is presently no such evidence.

Henry

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2009,18:33   

Quote
It's much easier to imagine a scenario under which natural forces could make a realistic looking face than it is to imagine a scenario where nature makes the very first self-replicating molecules, the very first enzyme, the first DNA, or any one of a multitude of life's essentials.


Incorrect. That face, if it contains a large amount of detail, is an imitation of something else, and precise imitations are unlikely to occur by accident. Those ingredients of life are not an imitation of something else, so the analogy does not apply.

Henry

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2009,18:44   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 25 2009,19:07)
The argument still applies boys!!  We know nothing of any alien race on Mars, but - one rock face later - suddenly there "has to be" a designer??

We've been this bend 'round the mulberry bush before, although last trip around it was Stonehenge on Mars. Since nothing has changed, this still holds:

There remains a fatal disanalogy between the detection of ordinary artifact creation (whether by human beings or creatures we infer are similar to human beings) and design detection in biology. You can reassert it all you like, but that remains the case.

The analogy is really to human design activities, not "design" in some abstract sense. The ability of human beings to originate artifacts by means of design confers upon the designed objects a long causal story. Upon encountering, say, a Dreamliner, we understand that this intricate object is the result of a long causal process, including many activities we can call "design." In that instance hundreds (thousands?) of engineers used sophisticated 3D modeling and simulation software and other contemporary techniques to design not just the aircraft itself, but the process of manufacturing the aircraft. This is a well known causal story. Moreover, the design processes have themselves evolved as mechanical and aeronautical engineering progressed throughout the 20th and into the 21st century. "Design" refers not just to the otherwise improbable intricacies of the aircraft, but (more importantly) to these known processes - this known, and extremely lengthy and intricate, causal story. It also includes the capabilities, motivations, and limitations of the designers themselves. THAT is the information that comprises the causal story designated by the term "design."

ID would like to borrow "design" as the causal story for the origination of biological organisms. In doing so it points to the the astounding intricacies of those organisms, claims analogy to the intricacies of objects like Dreamliners, and thereby states that it has supplied an analogous causal story that can serve as an alternative to those of the natural sciences, namely, "design." But the causal story that accounts for an artifact like a Dreamliner doesn't lie in the intricacies of the object. It lies in the complex processes that originated those intricacies (through the activities of those engineers), the larger story of the evolution of aeronautical engineering, and indeed the cumulative history of human beings and their artifacts. THAT is the causal story.

So ID utters "design" upon confronting complex biological phenomena, but, unlike the sort of causal story we can infer for Stonehenge on Mars (creatures not unlike ourselves, with a history not unlike our own is the causal story we would infer), ID has nothing to offer - absolutely nothing - when asked for the causal story for biology it is labeling "design." ID offers absolutely zero - because it knows absolutely nothing - when asked for specifics regarding the designer or designers, about the design process or processes, about the "handlike" processes that convert designs into actual objects, or about the origination of those processes. So ID claims an analogy to human design as a causal story in biological origins, but utterly fails to supply even a shred of an account of an actual causal story analogous to that we know so well in human design. Absent even a pretense of  a causal story or mechanism, "Design" as used by ID (and Daniel here) is utterly scientifically empty.

For that reason, ID has been flacidly impotent when called upon to generate testable predictions, or even to formally demonstrate the "detection" of the design that it claims lies all around. The bald fact of the matter is that over 15 years no one operating from the assumptions of ID has ever demonstrated the application of a formal method of "design detection" to any organism or feature of an organism, this despite repeated calls for same. This in a world awash in organisms you all claim reflect design.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2009,18:58   

that empirically useless designation "designed" is just playing ontological silly buggers anyway.  

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT MARS ISN'T ALREADY ONE GIANT FACE?*

or better yet, for shits and giggles, let's just imagine that you use your magic design detectometer and convince us that this face is designed.  or better yet "life is designed".  while we are pretending let's even stipulate that there is no fucking doubt about it, by the gods this sombitch, this donqwhizzulator here, is designed.  D-signed.  got a goddam pricetag on it and a bar code.  Duh-Zine.

Even if it is true (which you can never demonstrate to any satisfactory level without doing the equivalent of just adding 'designed' to the definition of 'life') what the fuck does that get you?

Not a god damned thing.  it doesn't explain any facet of any biological phenomenon.  

it's just part of your grand metaphysical bring rome to the romans post modern existential narrative.  song of myself, only gayer.

but you keep on hunting for that bar code, sugar, I'm sure the master signs his work somehow, right?  too bad it's the same signature as descent with modification via undirected mutation and selection.  what a devious Coyote you worship.

i forget what archetypes your gods are modeled after...  morning star, eternal shape shifter, coyote, i don't remember...  here is a carrot why don't you talk about the boatload of animals and all that shit.  

your question begging plea to add an information-free subjective descriptor to the definition of living things is getting old.  why don't you kick  around a different pile of tard.

*seriously you must answer that question.  if you don't we know you aren't interested in the logical consequences of stimulating your little design fetish.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 25 2009,22:54   

Quote
Louis, posted 3/23/09 3:29 AM
Quote
(FrankH @ Mar. 22 2009,16:30)
I'm no chemist, nor am I a biologist...[SNIP]

Ah but do you play one on television?

Louis

Or failing that, did he stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night? :)

Henry

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2009,01:26   

This whole "face on Mars" BS reminded me of the SETI analogy that IDiots like to misuse, which was refuted by Seth Shostak (here), and commented on through the  Neurologica and Skepticblog.

I also found the hilarious Creation Wiki.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 26 2009,07:19   

Quote
So ID utters "design" upon confronting complex biological phenomena, but, unlike the sort of causal story we can infer for Stonehenge on Mars (creatures not unlike ourselves, with a history not unlike our own is the causal story we would infer), ID has nothing to offer - absolutely nothing - when asked for the causal story for biology it is labeling "design." ID offers absolutely zero - because it knows absolutely nothing - when asked for specifics regarding the designer or designers, about the design process or processes, about the "handlike" processes that convert designs into actual objects, or about the origination of those processes. So ID claims an analogy to human design as a causal story in biological origins, but utterly fails to supply even a shred of an account of an actual causal story analogous to that we know so well in human design. Absent even a pretense of  a causal story or mechanism, "Design" as used by ID (and Daniel here) is utterly scientifically empty.

What remains is just one and only one option: Magic aka good old religion. But besides faith - do we have any evidence, any reason to really believe that any god with unlimited magical powers are involved? There are reasons, too many that says no! For the foreseeable future, the matter is settled.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2009,11:06   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 25 2009,16:44)
So ID utters "design" upon confronting complex biological phenomena, but, unlike the sort of causal story we can infer for Stonehenge on Mars (creatures not unlike ourselves, with a history not unlike our own is the causal story we would infer) ...

With absolutely no knowledge of the designer(s) and no evidence except for the artifact in question, how would you justify such an inference?

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2009,11:15   

because it looks like something humans would do, Daniel.

Now, what is it about life that looks like something The Great Spirit would do, and how do you know?








dude you ever seen the face on the moon?  It's REALLY A FACE, it's just not the face of any organism you have ever seen before.  now what do you do?

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2009,11:59   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 27 2009,19:06)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 25 2009,16:44)
So ID utters "design" upon confronting complex biological phenomena, but, unlike the sort of causal story we can infer for Stonehenge on Mars (creatures not unlike ourselves, with a history not unlike our own is the causal story we would infer) ...

With absolutely no knowledge of the designer(s) and no evidence except for the artifact in question, how would you justify such an inference?

Go pull the other one you complete tit.


The only reason you won't say god did it in science class is because it is against the frikken LAW.


Your truth lies.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2009,12:08   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 27 2009,11:06)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 25 2009,16:44)
So ID utters "design" upon confronting complex biological phenomena, but, unlike the sort of causal story we can infer for Stonehenge on Mars (creatures not unlike ourselves, with a history not unlike our own is the causal story we would infer) ...

With absolutely no knowledge of the designer(s) and no evidence except for the artifact in question, how would you justify such an inference?

I think the same question can equally be asked of you.


Well?

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 27 2009,12:20   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 27 2009,12:06)
     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 25 2009,16:44)
So ID utters "design" upon confronting complex biological phenomena, but, unlike the sort of causal story we can infer for Stonehenge on Mars (creatures not unlike ourselves, with a history not unlike our own is the causal story we would infer) ...

With absolutely no knowledge of the designer(s) and no evidence except for the artifact in question, how would you justify such an inference?

Objects similar to those we create (such as those that reflect representation, as in a clear representation of a face) suggest the inference to a causal story similar to that underlying human artifacts (the artifact was devised by agents capable of representation). That is a reasonable hypothesis, not a conclusion.

The discovery of such an object on Mars would trigger a search for additional evidence of the creation of an artifact by means and for purposes similar to those deployed by human beings.

The search may not yield further evidence, in which case our conclusion may be "we don't know the origins of this object." The hypothesis would remain reasonable, but unconfirmed.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2009,08:58   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 27 2009,10:20)
           
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 27 2009,12:06)
                   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 25 2009,16:44)
So ID utters "design" upon confronting complex biological phenomena, but, unlike the sort of causal story we can infer for Stonehenge on Mars (creatures not unlike ourselves, with a history not unlike our own is the causal story we would infer) ...

With absolutely no knowledge of the designer(s) and no evidence except for the artifact in question, how would you justify such an inference?

Objects similar to those we create (such as those that reflect representation, as in a clear representation of a face) suggest the inference to a causal story similar to that underlying human artifacts (the artifact was devised by agents capable of representation). That is a reasonable hypothesis, not a conclusion.

The discovery of such an object on Mars would trigger a search for additional evidence of the creation of an artifact by means and for purposes similar to those deployed by human beings.

The search may not yield further evidence, in which case our conclusion may be "we don't know the origins of this object." The hypothesis would remain reasonable, but unconfirmed.

The inference to a causal story then is the key to the design inference.  As soon as your mind's eye "saw" a detailed face on Mars, you were able to supply an inferred designer and an inferred causal history based on what you know about humans, (and in spite of the fact that there is currently no evidence of any civilization on Mars).  This was not a 'well thought out application of the scientific method', this was a guess, a hunch, a belief.  Your mind told you it was possible - "Man exists on earth... surely it's reasonable that an intelligent race could have existed on Mars" - and you ran with it.  So long as your mind was able to supply a reasonable causal history, you were able to look at an object of sufficient organizational complexity and instantly recognize design.

All I can say Bill is "Welcome to my world!".

You see, those of us who already believe in God are able to supply the "missing" causal history for life's designer.  Our minds have already accepted that there is an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent creator.  When we look at life, design is instantly recognizable.  When we look at DNA, we see genetic programming.  When we look at a flagellum, we see a God-designed motor.  Chloroplasts are God's photovoltaic cells.  Enzymes and all the other proteins are individually designed machinery - made to carry out specific functions.

The ability to supply the causal history is the key.  For an atheist, this inability prevents him from ever seeing the design in life.  I can only imagine that it's like finding a face an Mars and having to immediately rule out design.  You're left trying to figure out how natural forces built something that looks designed.  Sometimes you can, most of the time you can't.  So you're stuck with far-fetched hypotheses that rely on unlikely, once-in-history, series of events that can never be duplicated in the lab and essentially just has to be believed possible.  With our Mars face, it involved just the right combination of weather and geological events coming together in a one-time-only configuration.  For life it involved just the right combination of molecules and conditions coming together, (washing up on hot isolated rocks or whatever), and building the very first self-replicators, which in turn became isolated from contaminants so that just the right combination of new molecules washed in to replenish them while just the right combination of "bad" molecules washed out so that eventually proto-membranes were formed, which in turn...  Well you get the idea.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2009,09:00   

Quote
For life it involved just the right combination of molecules and conditions coming together, (washing up on hot isolated rocks or whatever), and building the very first self-replicators, which in turn became isolated from contaminants so that just the right combination of new molecules washed in to replenish them while just the right combination of "bad" molecules washed out so that eventually proto-membranes were formed, which in turn...  Well you get the idea.

My universe is bigger then yours Daniel.

EDIT: Can you supply a paragraph of similar length describing your version of how life came to be?

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2009,09:27   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 28 2009,09:58)
All I can say Bill is "Welcome to my world!".

You see, those of us who already believe in God are able to supply the "missing" causal history for life's designer.  Our minds have already accepted that there is an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent creator.

That's very sweet. But I think you meant, "Welcome to the Word."

But the context of this discussion, at least for me, is the ongoing effort to build a scientific account of the origins of the complexity we observe. Drop any pretension that your system of beliefs has tractable implications for that effort and we are indeed in the same world, as I have no quarrel with people asserting their spiritual and religious beliefs, so long as they understand the limitations inherent in a faith-based foundation for belief. Insist otherwise, and you've departed into your own.
           
Quote
The ability to supply the causal history is the key.

That's right. Please supply yours (God did this, then God did that), and the evidentiary basis for same (e.g., why not God did that, then God did the other?)
           
Quote
I can only imagine that it's like finding a face an Mars and having to immediately rule out design.

That is the precisely the opposite of what I stated. I unambiguously stated that a clearly representational face on Mars would indeed suggest the inference to a causal story similar to that which underlies representational human artifacts. It would trigger a search for further evidence in support that inference, e.g., evidence for agents similar to ourselves in their employment of representation.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2009,10:04   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 28 2009,08:58)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 27 2009,10:20)
             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 27 2009,12:06)
                     
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 25 2009,16:44)
So ID utters "design" upon confronting complex biological phenomena, but, unlike the sort of causal story we can infer for Stonehenge on Mars (creatures not unlike ourselves, with a history not unlike our own is the causal story we would infer) ...

With absolutely no knowledge of the designer(s) and no evidence except for the artifact in question, how would you justify such an inference?

Objects similar to those we create (such as those that reflect representation, as in a clear representation of a face) suggest the inference to a causal story similar to that underlying human artifacts (the artifact was devised by agents capable of representation). That is a reasonable hypothesis, not a conclusion.

The discovery of such an object on Mars would trigger a search for additional evidence of the creation of an artifact by means and for purposes similar to those deployed by human beings.

The search may not yield further evidence, in which case our conclusion may be "we don't know the origins of this object." The hypothesis would remain reasonable, but unconfirmed.

The inference to a causal story then is the key to the design inference.  As soon as your mind's eye "saw" a detailed face on Mars, you were able to supply an inferred designer and an inferred causal history based on what you know about humans, (and in spite of the fact that there is currently no evidence of any civilization on Mars).  This was not a 'well thought out application of the scientific method', this was a guess, a hunch, a belief.  Your mind told you it was possible - "Man exists on earth... surely it's reasonable that an intelligent race could have existed on Mars" - and you ran with it.  So long as your mind was able to supply a reasonable causal history, you were able to look at an object of sufficient organizational complexity and instantly recognize design.[/QUOTE]

The problem, Daniel, is that you confuse "belief" with "evidence".  Reciprocating Bill brings up the point that we would use the guess that it could be designed and go further, looking for evidence to confirm or disconfirm that.  We don't stop at "It looks designed, so it must be."

Using your bizarro logic, since I saw a bunny and a pirate (on a pony!) in the clouds yesterday, I can infer that they were put up in the sky specifically for me, telling me....well, I don't know, but it must be important.

Do you expect us to believe that you have never heard of optical illusions, or  pareidolia?

You never stop at your guesses...well, we don't, but you show a distressing failure of critical thought and stop at whatever answer satisfies your preconceived notions and religious beliefs.

Your last sentence that I quoted should read:

So long as your mind was able to supply a possible causal history, you were able to look at an object of any complexity and make a guess that it may have been designed, but you'd need evidence to see if your off-the-cuff hypothesis was real or just an artifact of human perception and thought.  Only an idiot assumes design just because they think it is possible.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2009,10:31   

Quote
That's very sweet. But I think you meant, "Welcome to the Word."


roflmao

hey daniel do you happen to be a youth group minister?  this sort of shtick sounds familiar.  please do tell.

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

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 28 2009,12:25   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 28 2009,10:00)
   
Quote
For life it involved just the right combination of molecules and conditions coming together, (washing up on hot isolated rocks or whatever), and building the very first self-replicators, which in turn became isolated from contaminants so that just the right combination of new molecules washed in to replenish them while just the right combination of "bad" molecules washed out so that eventually proto-membranes were formed, which in turn...  Well you get the idea.

My universe is bigger then yours Daniel.

EDIT: Can you supply a paragraph of similar length describing your version of how life came to be?

I can take that one for you Denial:
 
Quote
Goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit goddidit!
And since that has exactly the same number of characters, it would also have the exact same information content (according to Joe G over at unintelligentreasoning).  If you squint real hard, it's also a cake recipe.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
noncarborundum



Posts: 320
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2009,00:59   

Daniel, I realize Reciprocating Bill can speak for himself (far better than I can speak for him), but don't you see what you've done here?
   
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 27 2009,10:20)
Objects similar to those we create (such as those that reflect representation, as in a clear representation of a face) suggest the inference to a causal story similar to that underlying human artifacts (the artifact was devised by agents capable of representation).

   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 28 2009,08:58)
So long as your mind was able to supply a reasonable causal history, you were able to look at an object of sufficient organizational complexity and instantly recognize design.

Does it need pointing out that this is a complete non sequitur?  "Objects similar to those we create (such as those that reflect representation, as in a clear representation of a face)" is not at all the same thing as "an object of sufficient organizational complexity".  That is, it's not the "organizational complexity" that's at issue, regardless of how much you want it to be.

--------------
"The . . . um . . . okay, I was genetically selected for blue eyes.  I know there are brown eyes, because I've observed them, but I can't do it.  Okay?  So . . . um . . . coz that's real genetic selection, not the nonsense Giberson and the others are talking about." - DO'L

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2009,13:40   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 28 2009,07:27)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 28 2009,09:58)
All I can say Bill is "Welcome to my world!".

You see, those of us who already believe in God are able to supply the "missing" causal history for life's designer.  Our minds have already accepted that there is an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent creator.

That's very sweet. But I think you meant, "Welcome to the Word."

But the context of this discussion, at least for me, is the ongoing effort to build a scientific account of the origins of the complexity we observe. Drop any pretension that your system of beliefs has tractable implications for that effort and we are indeed in the same world, as I have no quarrel with people asserting their spiritual and religious beliefs, so long as they understand the limitations inherent in a faith-based foundation for belief. Insist otherwise, and you've departed into your own.
               
Quote
The ability to supply the causal history is the key.

That's right. Please supply yours (God did this, then God did that), and the evidentiary basis for same (e.g., why not God did that, then God did the other?)
               
Quote
I can only imagine that it's like finding a face an Mars and having to immediately rule out design.

That is the precisely the opposite of what I stated. I unambiguously stated that a clearly representational face on Mars would indeed suggest the inference to a causal story similar to that which underlies representational human artifacts. It would trigger a search for further evidence in support that inference, e.g., evidence for agents similar to ourselves in their employment of representation.

Bill,

Either you didn't understand what I wrote, or you did but decided to build strawmen arguments against it anyway.

I'd suggest you re-read my response.  
Quote
The inference to a causal story then is the key to the design inference.  As soon as your mind's eye "saw" a detailed face on Mars, you were able to supply an inferred designer and an inferred causal history based on what you know about humans, (and in spite of the fact that there is currently no evidence of any civilization on Mars).  This was not a 'well thought out application of the scientific method', this was a guess, a hunch, a belief.  Your mind told you it was possible - "Man exists on earth... surely it's reasonable that an intelligent race could have existed on Mars" - and you ran with it.  So long as your mind was able to supply a reasonable causal history, you were able to look at an object of sufficient organizational complexity and instantly recognize design.

All I can say Bill is "Welcome to my world!".

You see, those of us who already believe in God are able to supply the "missing" causal history for life's designer.  Our minds have already accepted that there is an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent creator.  When we look at life, design is instantly recognizable.  When we look at DNA, we see genetic programming.  When we look at a flagellum, we see a God-designed motor.  Chloroplasts are God's photovoltaic cells.  Enzymes and all the other proteins are individually designed machinery - made to carry out specific functions.

The ability to supply the causal history is the key.  For an atheist, this inability prevents him from ever seeing the design in life.  I can only imagine that it's like finding a face an Mars and having to immediately rule out design.  You're left trying to figure out how natural forces built something that looks designed.  Sometimes you can, most of the time you can't.  So you're stuck with far-fetched hypotheses that rely on unlikely, once-in-history, series of events that can never be duplicated in the lab and essentially just has to be believed possible.  With our Mars face, it involved just the right combination of weather and geological events coming together in a one-time-only configuration.  For life it involved just the right combination of molecules and conditions coming together, (washing up on hot isolated rocks or whatever), and building the very first self-replicators, which in turn became isolated from contaminants so that just the right combination of new molecules washed in to replenish them while just the right combination of "bad" molecules washed out so that eventually proto-membranes were formed, which in turn...  Well you get the idea.


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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2009,13:51   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 30 2009,13:40)
Either you didn't understand what I wrote, or you did but decided to build strawmen arguments against it anyway.

I'd suggest you re-read my response.  

Running out of ideas Danny boy?

Why don't you actually point out where the strawman is?

Quote
When we look at a flagellum, we see a God-designed motor.


When I see a rock that looks like a face, I know it looks like a face because I know what faces look like.

When you see a "god designed flagellum" how do you tell it apart from a "flagellum designed by natural selection"?

You are beyond a joke Danny boy, and you know it.

What's the matter, realised you are going round in circles?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2009,13:53   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 30 2009,13:40)
With our Mars face, it involved just the right combination of weather and geological events coming together in a one-time-only configuration.

But it DID!

Or are you suggesting that the face on Mars was in fact designed by some sort of living entity?

Mo-ran.

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2009,15:51   

When I read Daniels sig, I read: There is little hope of advance living by assumptions about what is true.

Quote
"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


And after seeing him quote Dawkins on that, isn’t it kind of funny to see him bypass science with his assumptive statement of faith:

Quote
When we look at a flagellum, we see a God-designed motor.


Why bother with science, just look at a flagellum through Daniel’s eyes.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2009,17:00   

Quote
When we look at a flagellum, we see a God-designed motor.

He's just trying to whip evolution theory. :p

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2009,17:59   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 30 2009,14:40)
Either you didn't understand what I wrote, or you did but decided to build strawmen arguments against it anyway.

I'd suggest you re-read my response.  

Let's break it down. As it happens, you are right to say that I misunderstood a portion of your post.
     
Quote
The inference to a causal story then is the key to the design inference.  As soon as your mind's eye "saw" a detailed face on Mars, you were able to supply an inferred designer and an inferred causal history based on what you know about humans, (and in spite of the fact that there is currently no evidence of any civilization on Mars).  This was not a 'well thought out application of the scientific method', this was a guess, a hunch, a belief.

Which, as you say, is more or less equivalent to this:
     
Quote
Objects similar to those we create (such as those that reflect representation, as in a clear representation of a face) suggest the inference to a causal story similar to that underlying human artifacts (the artifact was devised by agents capable of representation). That is a reasonable hypothesis, not a conclusion.

You continue:
       
Quote
Your mind told you it was possible - "Man exists on earth... surely it's reasonable that an intelligent race could have existed on Mars" - and you ran with it.

I "run with it" only in this sense:
     
Quote
The discovery of such an object on Mars would trigger a search for additional evidence of the creation of an artifact by means and for purposes similar to those deployed by human beings. The search may not yield further evidence, in which case our conclusion may be "we don't know the origins of this object." The hypothesis would remain reasonable, but unconfirmed.

You continued:
     
Quote
I can only imagine that it's like finding a face an Mars and having to immediately rule out design.  You're left trying to figure out how natural forces built something that looks designed.  Sometimes you can, most of the time you can't.  So you're stuck with far-fetched hypotheses that rely on unlikely, once-in-history, series of events that can never be duplicated in the lab and essentially just has to be believed possible.  With our Mars face, it involved just the right combination of weather and geological events coming together in a one-time-only configuration.

For life it involved just the right combination of molecules and conditions coming together, (washing up on hot isolated rocks or whatever), and building the very first self-replicators, which in turn became isolated from contaminants so that just the right combination of new molecules washed in to replenish them while just the right combination of "bad" molecules washed out so that eventually proto-membranes were formed, which in turn...  Well you get the idea.

I did misconstrue the intent behind the first portion of your statement above. You are analogizing science, in its insistence upon methodological naturalism, to the poor souls who discover a representational object on Mars, yet refuse to consider that an agent capable of representation created it.

Here all you are really doing is restating your original "argument from impossibility." It is certainly true that we are nowhere near a satisfactory scientific account of the origins of life, although (as I said earlier), many pieces of the puzzle are in the box, and some corners and edges have been joined. You believe such an account is unattainable, because you believe God authored life and we are incapable of comprehending God's mind and methods.

That's very nice, but inspect the dead horse over yonder and you'll recall agreeing that your argument goes nowhere scientifically useful, even in a negative sense. The assumption of an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent creator and 75 cents gets you a cup of coffee with respect to constructing an alternative causal account that actually explains anything. And, as you acknowledge, providing a causal account is everything.

I happen to expect that a good scientific account of the OOL will eventually be attained, although very likely not in my lifetime and perhaps not in my children's lifetimes. Whether or not that is the case, the only method available to pursue the question empirically and incrementally is that of methodological naturalism, a method that of necessity ignores your thesis. God theory gives no guidance regarding where to turn our research shovels, and is scientifically useless. There is no way to "run with it" in the empirical manner I describe above WRT the face on Mars.

Wait...did the dead horse stir?

Nope.

[Edit/addition for clarity.]

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2009,23:12   

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 31 2009,01:00)
Quote
When we look at a flagellum, we see a God-designed motor.

He's just trying to whip evolution theory. :p

Have you ever looked at a Flagelum Man, I mean really looked?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2009,00:34   

Quote (k.e.. @ Mar. 30 2009,23:12)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 31 2009,01:00)
Quote
When we look at a flagellum, we see a God-designed motor.

He's just trying to whip evolution theory. :p

Have you ever looked at a Flagelum Man, I mean really looked?

I've never seen Flagelum Man, but I did see Particle Man

(hope that worked)

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2009,18:31   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 30 2009,15:59)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 30 2009,14:40)
Either you didn't understand what I wrote, or you did but decided to build strawmen arguments against it anyway.

I'd suggest you re-read my response.  

Let's break it down. As it happens, you are right to say that I misunderstood a portion of your post.
               
Quote
The inference to a causal story then is the key to the design inference.  As soon as your mind's eye "saw" a detailed face on Mars, you were able to supply an inferred designer and an inferred causal history based on what you know about humans, (and in spite of the fact that there is currently no evidence of any civilization on Mars).  This was not a 'well thought out application of the scientific method', this was a guess, a hunch, a belief.

Which, as you say, is more or less equivalent to this:
               
Quote
Objects similar to those we create (such as those that reflect representation, as in a clear representation of a face) suggest the inference to a causal story similar to that underlying human artifacts (the artifact was devised by agents capable of representation). That is a reasonable hypothesis, not a conclusion.

You continue:
                 
Quote
Your mind told you it was possible - "Man exists on earth... surely it's reasonable that an intelligent race could have existed on Mars" - and you ran with it.

I "run with it" only in this sense:
               
Quote
The discovery of such an object on Mars would trigger a search for additional evidence of the creation of an artifact by means and for purposes similar to those deployed by human beings. The search may not yield further evidence, in which case our conclusion may be "we don't know the origins of this object." The hypothesis would remain reasonable, but unconfirmed.

You continued:
               
Quote
I can only imagine that it's like finding a face an Mars and having to immediately rule out design.  You're left trying to figure out how natural forces built something that looks designed.  Sometimes you can, most of the time you can't.  So you're stuck with far-fetched hypotheses that rely on unlikely, once-in-history, series of events that can never be duplicated in the lab and essentially just has to be believed possible.  With our Mars face, it involved just the right combination of weather and geological events coming together in a one-time-only configuration.

For life it involved just the right combination of molecules and conditions coming together, (washing up on hot isolated rocks or whatever), and building the very first self-replicators, which in turn became isolated from contaminants so that just the right combination of new molecules washed in to replenish them while just the right combination of "bad" molecules washed out so that eventually proto-membranes were formed, which in turn...  Well you get the idea.

I did misconstrue the intent behind the first portion of your statement above. You are analogizing science, in its insistence upon methodological naturalism, to the poor souls who discover a representational object on Mars, yet refuse to consider that an agent capable of representation created it.

Here all you are really doing is restating your original "argument from impossibility." It is certainly true that we are nowhere near a satisfactory scientific account of the origins of life, although (as I said earlier), many pieces of the puzzle are in the box, and some corners and edges have been joined. You believe such an account is unattainable, because you believe God authored life and we are incapable of comprehending God's mind and methods.

That's very nice, but inspect the dead horse over yonder and you'll recall agreeing that your argument goes nowhere scientifically useful, even in a negative sense. The assumption of an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent creator and 75 cents gets you a cup of coffee with respect to constructing an alternative causal account that actually explains anything. And, as you acknowledge, providing a causal account is everything.

I happen to expect that a good scientific account of the OOL will eventually be attained, although very likely not in my lifetime and perhaps not in my children's lifetimes. Whether or not that is the case, the only method available to pursue the question empirically and incrementally is that of methodological naturalism, a method that of necessity ignores your thesis. God theory gives no guidance regarding where to turn our research shovels, and is scientifically useless. There is no way to "run with it" in the empirical manner I describe above WRT the face on Mars.

Wait...did the dead horse stir?

Nope.

[Edit/addition for clarity.]

Thank you Bill for admitting to misconstruing my response.
I feel there's hope for us yet!

I am not attempting to make a scientific theory here, I am hoping rather, to understand the world and why we see it so differently.

I feel as if I've realized a fundamental truth.  Both of us (everyone actually) when confronted with a detailed face on Mars, would immediately infer design because we can all imagine a designer on Mars - someone not unlike us.

This is the key to a design inference - the ability to infer a possible designer.  Once that hurdle is cleared, design is readily apparent.  I feel that perhaps I wasn't clear enough about this in my original response - so let me restate it here: It's not the causal history of the object or artifact that is key - it's the causal history of the designer.  We can all supply a hypothetical designer for a face on Mars - only those open to the possibility of God (or some other ancient pre-human intelligence) can do so for life on Earth.

The other main point of my response was that this process of inferring a designer is not a long, methodical, scientific process; it is an instant, intuitive mental process whereby we just say essentially "Yeah, I can believe that".

For me that was a revelation.

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2009,18:45   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 01 2009,18:31)
The other main point of my response was that this process of inferring a designer is not a long, methodical, scientific process; it is an instant, intuitive mental process whereby we just say essentially "Yeah, I can believe that".

For me that was a revelation.

"Stupid people try to find evidence that they're right. Smart people try to find evidence that they're wrong."
-stevestory

The point being that by engaging in fallacies of multiple categories, self-deception, and the sorts of mental gymnastics that would do circus contortionists proud, you deliberately avoid any kind of confontation with ever being wrong.

Ever.  

This has been pointed out many, many times -- yet your conclusion is that even if YOU personally

(1) have no positive evidence FOR your claims that are not based on fallacy, that
(2) any evidence against your "intuitive belief"  as a "sole explanation"... doesn't count.

In your world, facts in evidence are subordinate to your "intuitive sense" that Goddidit -- Your entire epistemic stance is one of "Heads I win, tails you lose."

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

Oh, and in case you try a "tu quoque" -- the fact is that **if there were*** substantive (and that means extraordinary, not trivial anecdote) positive evidence for a god or gods presented today, I'd be more than willing to change my position.

As a matter of fact, as has been pointed out, there are believers right here on this site -- they're simply wise enough to actually use honest logic in dealing with biological evolution. You're not.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 01 2009,20:03   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 01 2009,19:31)
I feel as if I've realized a fundamental truth.  Both of us (everyone actually) when confronted with a detailed face on Mars, would immediately infer design because we can all imagine a designer on Mars - someone not unlike us.

This is the key to a design inference - the ability to infer a possible designer.  Once that hurdle is cleared, design is readily apparent.  I feel that perhaps I wasn't clear enough about this in my original response - so let me restate it here: It's not the causal history of the object or artifact that is key - it's the causal history of the designer.  We can all supply a hypothetical designer for a face on Mars - only those open to the possibility of God (or some other ancient pre-human intelligence) can do so for life on Earth.

The other main point of my response was that this process of inferring a designer is not a long, methodical, scientific process; it is an instant, intuitive mental process whereby we just say essentially "Yeah, I can believe that".

For me that was a revelation.

All well and good. But some things you should realize:

- I find it immediately and intuitively obvious that descent with modification as originally described by Darwin, and elaborated in the 150 years since, is the author of the incredible variety and complexity of life on earth. Indeed, upon really grasping the argument it struck me as impossible that such processes would not result in the evolution and elaboration of biological forms. For me that was a revelation.

- It is my belief that anyone who fails to see this simply does not grasp the power of selectionist causation.

- It is also my personal belief that life arises whenever and wherever certain circumstances obtain. Not only is life not improbable, it is inevitable. I can believe that. And I do.  

- It is intuitively and directly obvious to me that the ascription of these states of affairs to either accidental or intentional causes commits a category error.

- Further, it is directly and intuitively obvious to me that the deepest complexities and nuances of our experience arise from the functional organization of the matter and energy of which we are constructed, and that nothing of that experience survives the dissolution of that functional organization. From where I sit, anyone who believes otherwise is in denial of evidence that is staring them blankly in the face.

- None of the above is the least distressing to me, and I am content to go into oblivion in the not all that distant future, consistent with those realities. 13.7 billion years without Reciprocating Bill didn't seem to present a problem; nor will the ensuing billions (although I'm with Woody Allen when one of his characters stated, "I'm not afraid to die. I just don't want to be there when it happens.") Nor does the above tempt me to rape and pillage.  

Now, the above and 75 cents...you get the picture.

And that's the problem with asserting the "intuitively obvious." Your above assertions are intuitively obvious to you - yet diametrically opposite assertions are intuitively obvious to me. In the arena of these windy generalizations there is no progress to be made asserting and counter asserting such intuitions (although lapses in reasoning are fair game).

Fortunately, the brilliant invention of the scientific method, within the framework of methodological naturalism, works for anyone when properly applied, regardless of which particular brand of hot air animates the philosophical lobe of their cranium squid. None of the above assertions, mine or yours, have any bearing upon that. Therein lies the only real tool for obtaining incremental knowledge with foundations that stand apart from such a prior intuitions. Fortunately, evolutionary biology stands upon and grows by means of this empirical foundation.

[edit for accuracy vis "category error"]

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2009,00:47   

Quote
I feel as if I've realized a fundamental truth.


I feel as if you are an incessant bore.  Enough with the "dude look at your hand" shtick.

 
Quote
We can all supply a hypothetical designer for a face on Mars - only those open to the possibility of God (or some other ancient pre-human intelligence) can do so for life on Earth.


Face on Mars.... Oh, you mean a sculpture.  Yes we can all imagine that sculptures have sculptors.

(by the way, Denial, you never responded to my assertion that the whole fucking planet is a face.  telling, son).

yeah yeah we can all imagine a tangible sculptor.  

who here can imagine a tangible creator of life?  No One. You can claim you do but all you are doing is putting a name on a vacuum.

It's like claiming you can imagine a five sided square.  You are a liar.

I know "sculptors".  You might too, although at times I do question how much exposure to the outside world you've actually had.  Dude, your hand...

I don't know, You don't know, and You know that I know that You don't know "life on earth creators".  Stop with the false equivalences already you tiresome fraud.

ETA  soften the truth, not that it matters.  Denial doesn't give a flying rats pudenda about anything but confirming his shallow religious beliefs.

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

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

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2009,01:11   

When are you gonna talk about the flood, anyway?  You have got exactly fuckall else to talk about.

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

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2009,01:12   

I find it really, really hard to believe that Daniel still can't get the idea that we want reality as it is, not as we would like to "infer".  You can infer all the design you want, but without evidence, this designer exists as much as Princess Pouty-Poof who shapes the clouds for my pleasure.

Sorry, Daniel, we like to live in a world that exists outside our heads, and outside our fears.

If we see any kind of face on Mars, most people might infer a designer.  We, and I think I can say this for most of us here, would first ask "is there actually a face there" before we ask "what caused this face to be there", finally going to, if there is evidence for it, "what kind of creature might have made this face".  You want to jump over the first whole lot of steps and go immediately to the last.  Sorry, that's not justified outside of grade school playgrounds and Churches.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2009,01:16   

Quote
The other main point of my response was that this process of inferring a designer is not a long, methodical, scientific process; it is an instant, intuitive mental process whereby we just say essentially "Yeah, I can believe that".

For me that was a revelation.
Of course the next, obvious revelation should be that inferences of faces from piles of rocks are, in general, something to be extremely skeptical about.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2009,06:24   

I think for the purposes of this discussion we can stipulate a face, or Stonehenge, on Mars that is indisputably an artifact, such that we all are compelled to agree that it is beyond reasonable doubt that it is the product of an agent. This is a thought experiment, after all.

The fact that we are compelled to consider agency in such a case still doesn't help Daniel's argument, however, because we have many grounds for concluding that there are natural pathways to the complexity of biological forms absent the actions of an agent. Therefore the analogy fails.  

(OTOH, Daniel sometimes writes about this artifact as though we have actually found such a thing.)

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2009,06:37   

Quote
it is an instant, intuitive mental process whereby we just say essentially "Yeah, I can believe that".


Intuition, or wishful thinking?

Saying "Yes, I can believe that" seems to belong in the second category.

Intuition, Daniel style:

'Flying Spaghetti Monster' -- Yeah, that I can believe in!

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2009,07:11   

Daniel

Quote
"Our minds have already accepted that there is an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent creator.  When we look at life, design is instantly recognizable.  When we look at DNA, we see genetic programming.  When we look at a flagellum, we see a God-designed motor.  Chloroplasts are God's photovoltaic cells.  Enzymes and all the other proteins are individually designed machinery - made to carry out specific functions.

The ability to supply the causal history is the key..."


What you have just said is, "I am biased and predisposed to view evidence through the filter of religion and my emotional beliefs."

You are now free to remove any semblance of logic or accepted scientific process from your arguments.

 
Quote
“we see a God-designed…”

...Is based on emotion and nothing supported by evidence.

Just admit to it and we can move on.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2009,07:52   

Let's push Denial's allegations a bit, shall we?

In particular, the one concerning the bacterial flagellum. Denial implies that it is so close to human design that it has to be created. The first electric motor (assumed to be the human design denial is refering to) was tested as a physical principle in 1821 by Faraday. Before that, nothing designed would actually ressemble the bacterial flagellum. And here I am over-simplyfying, assuming that the flagellum's means of motion are related to this kind of design. But after all, that's what ID thinks, because if they didn't then everything would be designed, down to rain drops (see how perfect is the round bottom and pointy top?). And that could cause some problems.

The thing is, the human brain is predisposed to find patterns where sometimes there is none. It is a very useful evolutionary trait, But in some cases such as Denials, it is just a handicap.  

It is NOT the cell that looks like a factory, it IS, in the eye of the beholder, the factory that looks like a cell. Any other view will lead to a precognitive nature that just KNEW what an electric motor or a factory would look like.*

This is so over-simplified and dull I feel shame and should have wrote it yesterday to at least have the "april fool" excuse.

Please bash as feels suited...


ps: and yes; I am almost drunk at 3 pm, but I've had a bad week!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2009,08:25   

Denial's "Face on Mars" revelation is hilarious. Here's another "didja ever look at your hand"-style revelation for him.

We can recognize a thing that resembles a human face because ... we are human!

How does that help us recognize the works of the ineffable designer? In order for that argument to be useful we need an auxiliary hypothesis, i.e., the designer looks, thinks and acts like a human. Naturally the Bible tells us that is the case; we are made in God's image, etc. But absent the Bible, there is no reason to hypothesize that some entity capable of making us and bacterial flagella and a butterfly and an ATPase will necessarily resemble us. There is no evidence in favor of the auxiliary hypothesis, and plenty of reasons to think that it is false.

Daniel, if our puny thought processes and designs had absolutely no resemblance to those of the ineffable telic entity, could you recognize the designs of the entity? Absent the auxiliary hypothesis that your entity resembles you, what sort of evidence would be needed to infer design?

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2009,08:31   

Quote
(OTOH, Daniel sometimes writes about this artifact as though we have actually found such a thing.)


There are websites devoted to proving that there are artifacts and living things on Mars. Forests, even. Things like that should serve as a warning about our tendency toward false or incorrect witness.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2009,09:14   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 02 2009,08:25)
Denial's "Face on Mars" revelation is hilarious. Here's another "didja ever look at your hand"-style revelation for him.

We can recognize a thing that resembles a human face because ... we are human!

How does that help us recognize the works of the ineffable designer? In order for that argument to be useful we need an auxiliary hypothesis, i.e., the designer looks, thinks and acts like a human. Naturally the Bible tells us that is the case; we are made in God's image, etc. But absent the Bible, there is no reason to hypothesize that some entity capable of making us and bacterial flagella and a butterfly and an ATPase will necessarily resemble us. There is no evidence in favor of the auxiliary hypothesis, and plenty of reasons to think that it is false.

Daniel, if our puny thought processes and designs had absolutely no resemblance to those of the ineffable telic entity, could you recognize the designs of the entity? Absent the auxiliary hypothesis that your entity resembles you, what sort of evidence would be needed to infer design?

which is exactly why I have been poking him with the

revelation

that the entire planet is a giant face.

It's just not a human face.

It's not a face that anyone on earth would recognize.

What now, Daniel?  It's a face, but you can't tell.  Please obfuscate further.







hey man did you ever reallllllllllllllly look at a booger?  It's like a planet, man!!!!

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

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

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

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2009,09:55   

{Wanders in}

{Yawns}

{Scratches balls}

{Thinks about sniffing fingers but doesn't}

So has Denial figured out how to refute my contention that it is impossible for him to demonstrate that he is not a child molester yet?

Has he even understood why I made the point yet?

Hell, has he understood anything yet?

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2009,09:59   

Quote (Quack @ April 02 2009,12:37)
Quote
it is an instant, intuitive mental process whereby we just say essentially "Yeah, I can believe that".


Intuition, or wishful thinking?

Saying "Yes, I can believe that" seems to belong in the second category.

Intuition, Daniel style:

'Flying Spaghetti Monster' -- Yeah, that I can believe in!

Me too. There are strippers and a beer volcano.

Where's my strippers and beer volcano, dammit, Denial?

Louis

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

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 02 2009,20:18   

Quote (Louis @ April 02 2009,10:59)
Where's my strippers and beer volcano, dammit, Denial?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29791612/

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2009,03:25   

Quote
The thing is, the human brain is predisposed to find patterns where sometimes there is none. It is a very useful evolutionary trait, But in some cases such as Denials, it is just a handicap.

Right. I even have been able to make that observation all by myself;-) Last winter, each morning at breakfast looking out my kitchen window I was staring straight at a forked oak tree. And lo and behold, a the fork - where I had thrown some twigs and whatever from the garden, i could have sworn I saw the corpse of Lynx staring at me, head and front legs clearly visible. And it stayed there, every morning I could see the same sight. I had to tell myself what I knew it was, but my brain kept telling me otherwise.

It didn't end before I went out and disrupted the pattern to give the poor creature (and my eyes) some rest.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2009,05:12   

Quote (JonF @ April 03 2009,02:18)
Quote (Louis @ April 02 2009,10:59)
Where's my strippers and beer volcano, dammit, Denial?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29791612/

It's tragic when this economic downturn starts affecting the really important service industries....

Louis

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2009,10:22   

Quote (Louis @ April 03 2009,13:12)
Quote (JonF @ April 03 2009,02:18)
Quote (Louis @ April 02 2009,10:59)
Where's my strippers and beer volcano, dammit, Denial?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29791612/

It's tragic when this economic downturn starts affecting the really important service industries....

Louis

Don't wurry

Someone will read Darwin


and jump off  a Church




Then we will c

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
SoonerintheBluegrass



Posts: 39
Joined: May 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2009,21:42   

Quote
When we look at a flagellum, we see a God-designed motor.


And when "we" look at yersinia pestis, do we see a god-designed "syringe", used for pumping toxins into other cells?  Which just happens to be composed of many of the same proteins that god used to make that  god-designed motor?

--------------
"And heaven will smell like the airport
But I may not get there to prove it
So let's not waste our time thinking how that ain't fair."

Neko Case

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2009,11:11   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 02 2009,04:24)
I think for the purposes of this discussion we can stipulate a face, or Stonehenge, on Mars that is indisputably an artifact, such that we all are compelled to agree that it is beyond reasonable doubt that it is the product of an agent. This is a thought experiment, after all.

The fact that we are compelled to consider agency in such a case still doesn't help Daniel's argument, however, because we have many grounds for concluding that there are natural pathways to the complexity of biological forms absent the actions of an agent. Therefore the analogy fails.  

(OTOH, Daniel sometimes writes about this artifact as though we have actually found such a thing.)

You're (again) missing my point.  

My analogy works for the very reason you say it fails:

There are a number of natural forces that could make a face on Mars.  

You act as if only a designer could make a detailed face on Mars while all manner of natural forces could make life.

The truth is - it's easier to reconstruct a hypothetical natural pathway to a detailed face on Mars than it is to reconstruct a hypothetical natural pathway to the first living cell.

The difference is - you can accept a designer on Mars, but you can't accept a designer for life - period.  The scientific method was not applied.  In our thought experiment on Mars, the designer was assumed (based solely on the detail of the face and inference) and the case was made that scientific research would be aimed exclusively at discovering more about he/she/it - not about whether of not the face was designed.  

This is why ID has failed (IMO).  ID is actually an extension of theology, but it's proponents are pretending it is not.  All ID adherents have made the logical assumption that a theoretical designer exists (or 'existed' in the case of Dr. Davison).  The designer has (in all cases made by the ID side) been reasonably assumed.  

Just as I can argue however, that natural forces could cause a detailed face on Mars, so too can it be argued (as you well know) that natural forces could make life.  It's an argument that can't be won or lost.  It's a case of prior bias and assumption.  The scientific method actually has nothing to do with it.  If, on Mars, certain scientists decided that since no designer was known, none could be assumed, the scientific method would be used by those scientists solely to discover the sequence of natural events that created this detailed 'face-like' structure.  Other scientists (those who accepted the possibility of a designer) would be wasting a lot of time trying to show that such an object was 'most likely' designed.  This is the failure of ID.  They need to assume design and move on to explore the implications of such an assumption - rather than waste time trying to convince the unconvinceable that life was designed.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2009,11:40   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 05 2009,11:11)
The truth is - it's easier to reconstruct a hypothetical natural pathway to a detailed face on Mars than it is to reconstruct a hypothetical natural pathway to the first living cell.

Why don't you give it a go then?

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2009,12:24   

Quote
The truth is - it's easier to reconstruct a hypothetical natural pathway to a detailed face on Mars than it is to reconstruct a hypothetical natural pathway to the first living cell.

It hurts like hell. I won't request pathetic detail, but you owe us an overview at least as detailed as what we have so far WRT abiogenesis. If I read you right that ought to be fairly easy. Fair enough?

But why bother, we are not into abiogenesis but origins of species - for which we have very detailed, accurate and well documented evidence, evidence that even Behe agrees with? All right, he needs the good old god of the gaps to make his dream complete but that's his (and your) privilege.

When can you have your first draft ready?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2009,13:09   

Denial

In your most recent drive-by, you seem to have missed something.

Here's the question again. Thanks in advance for giving it your best effort.
Quote
Daniel, if our puny thought processes and designs had absolutely no resemblance to those of the ineffable telic entity, could you recognize the designs of the entity? Absent the auxiliary hypothesis that your entity resembles you, what sort of evidence would be needed to infer design?


--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2009,14:10   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 25 2009,17:07)
The truth is, there'd be little discussion of whether or not natural forces created the face - especially if it turned out to be fairly detailed.  I'm willing to bet that the scientific community would readily accept design and launch right into a search for clues as to the designer's identity.

But Dan, the ID community (including you) has accepted design for biology. Not a single one of them (including you) has "launched right into a search for clues as to the designer's identity."

Why is that? Why don't any of them DO science?
Quote

And that's my point.  

That ID isn't science?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2009,17:39   

snicker

JAM hasn't received the supplementary chick tracts data appendices.

denial is such a whiny little sophist.  he can't even prove he is not a child molestor.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2009,21:54   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 05 2009,12:11)
There are a number of natural forces that could make a face on Mars.  

You act as if only a designer could make a detailed face on Mars while all manner of natural forces could make life.

Only a designer could create a face that I stipulate only a designer could create - as part of a thought experiment. Actual faces we discover on Mars won't arrive with such a stipulation.
             
Quote
This is why ID has failed (IMO).  ID is actually an extension of theology, but it's proponents are pretending it is not.

Another way ID has been dishonest is by suggesting that ET (a natural agent) may have been the author of life on earth. But we know you aren't doing that, to your credit. The hypothesis that a supernatural agent designed our imaginary Martian face is no more amenable empirical investigation than is the hypothesis that a supernatural designer gave rise to life on earth.
           
Quote
The truth is - it's easier to reconstruct a hypothetical natural pathway to a detailed face on Mars than it is to reconstruct a hypothetical natural pathway to the first living cell.

By what metric? A face on Mars that is clearly representational absent agents capable of representation would be much more difficult to explain than an actual organism bearing a face. A "face" that was not clearly representational, but rather coincidental, could (and has) arisen by natural means.
         
Quote
The difference is - you can accept a designer on Mars, but you can't accept a designer for life - period.  The scientific method was not applied.

The hypotheses of a natural designer of a face on Mars may give rise to predictions with the potential to guide empirical research into the question.

The hypothesis of a supernatural designer (the only designer in which you have interest) gives rise to no testable hypotheses capable of guiding empirical research. In a scientific context it is not a matter of "accepting" the hypothesis; those who "accept" supernatural causation (including yourself) have been no more successful in mounting, or even describing, empirical investigation into the question than those who do not - because such investigation isn't possible.

That's the difference. (cf: dead horse, yonder.)
           
Quote
Just as I can argue however, that natural forces could cause a detailed face on Mars, so too can it be argued (as you well know) that natural forces could make life.  It's an argument that can't be won or lost.  It's a case of prior bias and assumption.  The scientific method actually has nothing to do with it.

That's because you stop just where science proper begins. Begin the actual science, and you find, once again, that the hypothesis that a supernatural designer gave rise to life generates no testable entailments subject to empirical test such that the hypothesis is at risk of disconfirmation. Specific hypotheses with bearing on the natural OOL can and do. That is why science may be applied to the latter, and not the former, independent of any biases and expectations that may also be informing or distorting the thinking of the investigators. The scientific method has everything to do with the success or failure of efforts to construct a natural account of OOL, and nothing to do with the success or failure of your theological assertions.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2009,03:46   

Quote
That's because you stop just where science proper begins. Begin the actual science, and you find, once again, that the hypothesis that a supernatural designer gave rise to life generates no testable entailments subject to empirical test such that the hypothesis is at risk of disconfirmation. Specific hypotheses with bearing on the natural OOL can and do. That is why science may be applied to the latter, and not the former, independent of any biases and expectations that may also be informing or distorting the thinking of the investigators. The scientific method has everything to do with the success or failure of efforts to construct a natural account of OOL, and nothing to do with the success or failure of your theological assertions.


I know what goes through my mind when I read that; I am afraid it is wasted on Daniel. Surprise us, Daniel. Reading it ten times over, slowly, may help.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2009,18:03   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 05 2009,11:09)
Denial

In your most recent drive-by, you seem to have missed something.

Here's the question again. Thanks in advance for giving it your best effort.
           
Quote
Daniel, if our puny thought processes and designs had absolutely no resemblance to those of the ineffable telic entity, could you recognize the designs of the entity? Absent the auxiliary hypothesis that your entity resembles you, what sort of evidence would be needed to infer design?

The quality I see in nature that is a direct correlation to a characteristic I "see" in God is this:  Nature seems to be constructed in such a way that a designer would literally have to be able to consider every option before settling on the combination that best suited his plan.  This is consistent with the quality "omniscience" - which is a characteristic of the God I believe in.

I base this on the study of my biochemistry textbook.  The phrase I've most often uttered while reading it is far and away: "My God... you thought of everything!".

So the quality is the unfathomable depth of interdependency within and between the functional systems of life and non-life.

Man's designs are often stand-alone designs - requiring zero to relatively few inputs from outside sources.  God's designs are not like that.  The things God has made on this planet seem to be tied to everything else - somehow.  Our bodies are made from particles emitted from stars that exploded billions of years ago.  We are tied to the air, the land, the sea, the sun, the moon, and the stars.  We are tied to the plants, the animals, and the micro-organisms of this planet as well.

Man cannot make something so interdependent.

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

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2009,18:06   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 08 2009,19:03)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 05 2009,11:09)
Denial

In your most recent drive-by, you seem to have missed something.

Here's the question again. Thanks in advance for giving it your best effort.
             
Quote
Daniel, if our puny thought processes and designs had absolutely no resemblance to those of the ineffable telic entity, could you recognize the designs of the entity? Absent the auxiliary hypothesis that your entity resembles you, what sort of evidence would be needed to infer design?

The quality I see in nature that is a direct correlation to a characteristic I "see" in God is this:  Nature seems to be constructed in such a way that a designer would literally have to be able to consider every option before settling on the combination that best suited his plan.  This is consistent with the quality "omniscience" - which is a characteristic of the God I believe in.

I base this on the study of my biochemistry textbook.  The phrase I've most often uttered while reading it is far and away: "My God... you thought of everything!".

So the quality is the unfathomable depth of interdependency within and between the functional systems of life and non-life.

Man's designs are often stand-alone designs - requiring zero to relatively few inputs from outside sources.  God's designs are not like that.  The things God has made on this planet seem to be tied to everything else - somehow.  Our bodies are made from particles emitted from stars that exploded billions of years ago.  We are tied to the air, the land, the sea, the sun, the moon, and the stars.  We are tied to the plants, the animals, and the micro-organisms of this planet as well.

Man cannot make something so interdependent.

You are seriously into blithering.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2009,18:09   

Quote (JAM @ April 05 2009,12:10)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 25 2009,17:07)
The truth is, there'd be little discussion of whether or not natural forces created the face - especially if it turned out to be fairly detailed.  I'm willing to bet that the scientific community would readily accept design and launch right into a search for clues as to the designer's identity.

But Dan, the ID community (including you) has accepted design for biology. Not a single one of them (including you) has "launched right into a search for clues as to the designer's identity."

Why is that? Why don't any of them DO science?
 
Quote

And that's my point.  

That ID isn't science?

I'm searching for and learning about my designer's "identity" (his defining characteristics) every day.  I've learned as much or more about the reality of God from my biochemistry book than I did from years of sermons.  I'm learning that God has invested a lot of thought and energy into life on this planet (relatively speaking of course), which makes me think that he was (and probably is) incredibly invested and involved in this thing we call "life" and that he takes all of this very seriously.

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

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2009,18:10   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 08 2009,16:09)
Quote (JAM @ April 05 2009,12:10)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 25 2009,17:07)
The truth is, there'd be little discussion of whether or not natural forces created the face - especially if it turned out to be fairly detailed.  I'm willing to bet that the scientific community would readily accept design and launch right into a search for clues as to the designer's identity.

But Dan, the ID community (including you) has accepted design for biology. Not a single one of them (including you) has "launched right into a search for clues as to the designer's identity."

Why is that? Why don't any of them DO science?
   
Quote

And that's my point.  

That ID isn't science?

I'm searching for and learning about my designer's "identity" (his defining characteristics) every day.  I've learned as much or more about the reality of God from my biochemistry book than I did from years of sermons.  I'm learning that God has invested a lot of thought and energy into life on this planet (relatively speaking of course), which makes me think that he was (and probably is) incredibly invested and involved in this thing we call "life" and that he takes all of this very seriously.

Why do you assume the existence of a single designer?

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2009,18:12   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 08 2009,19:09)
Quote (JAM @ April 05 2009,12:10)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 25 2009,17:07)
The truth is, there'd be little discussion of whether or not natural forces created the face - especially if it turned out to be fairly detailed.  I'm willing to bet that the scientific community would readily accept design and launch right into a search for clues as to the designer's identity.

But Dan, the ID community (including you) has accepted design for biology. Not a single one of them (including you) has "launched right into a search for clues as to the designer's identity."

Why is that? Why don't any of them DO science?
   
Quote

And that's my point.  

That ID isn't science?

I'm searching for and learning about my designer's "identity" (his defining characteristics) every day.  I've learned as much or more about the reality of God from my biochemistry book than I did from years of sermons.  I'm learning that God has invested a lot of thought and energy into life on this planet (relatively speaking of course), which makes me think that he was (and probably is) incredibly invested and involved in this thing we call "life" and that he takes all of this very seriously.

And why do you assume god has a penis?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2009,18:23   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 05 2009,19:54)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 05 2009,12:11)
There are a number of natural forces that could make a face on Mars.  

You act as if only a designer could make a detailed face on Mars while all manner of natural forces could make life.

Only a designer could create a face that I stipulate only a designer could create - as part of a thought experiment. Actual faces we discover on Mars won't arrive with such a stipulation.
                   
Quote
This is why ID has failed (IMO).  ID is actually an extension of theology, but it's proponents are pretending it is not.

Another way ID has been dishonest is by suggesting that ET (a natural agent) may have been the author of life on earth. But we know you aren't doing that, to your credit. The hypothesis that a supernatural agent designed our imaginary Martian face is no more amenable empirical investigation than is the hypothesis that a supernatural designer gave rise to life on earth.
                 
Quote
The truth is - it's easier to reconstruct a hypothetical natural pathway to a detailed face on Mars than it is to reconstruct a hypothetical natural pathway to the first living cell.

By what metric? A face on Mars that is clearly representational absent agents capable of representation would be much more difficult to explain than an actual organism bearing a face. A "face" that was not clearly representational, but rather coincidental, could (and has) arisen by natural means.
               
Quote
The difference is - you can accept a designer on Mars, but you can't accept a designer for life - period.  The scientific method was not applied.

The hypotheses of a natural designer of a face on Mars may give rise to predictions with the potential to guide empirical research into the question.

The hypothesis of a supernatural designer (the only designer in which you have interest) gives rise to no testable hypotheses capable of guiding empirical research. In a scientific context it is not a matter of "accepting" the hypothesis; those who "accept" supernatural causation (including yourself) have been no more successful in mounting, or even describing, empirical investigation into the question than those who do not - because such investigation isn't possible.

That's the difference. (cf: dead horse, yonder.)
                 
Quote
Just as I can argue however, that natural forces could cause a detailed face on Mars, so too can it be argued (as you well know) that natural forces could make life.  It's an argument that can't be won or lost.  It's a case of prior bias and assumption.  The scientific method actually has nothing to do with it.

That's because you stop just where science proper begins. Begin the actual science, and you find, once again, that the hypothesis that a supernatural designer gave rise to life generates no testable entailments subject to empirical test such that the hypothesis is at risk of disconfirmation. Specific hypotheses with bearing on the natural OOL can and do. That is why science may be applied to the latter, and not the former, independent of any biases and expectations that may also be informing or distorting the thinking of the investigators. The scientific method has everything to do with the success or failure of efforts to construct a natural account of OOL, and nothing to do with the success or failure of your theological assertions.

Bill,

Why do continue to retreat to empirical science when you know that I have accepted all of your arguments regarding that?

I am not trying to construct a scientific theory.  I am "working" (in my own way) from a theological assumption about origins.  I made that clear on my first post here.  My Argument from Impossibility is based on the premise that a "God of infinite intelligence" created life on this planet.  I said: "if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means".  The premise is the supernatural creation of life on this planet and the prediction is based on that premise.  It's not a scientific argument, it's a theological one.

I know that you already know that.  We've had this same conversation numerous times.

So why?

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

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2009,18:26   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 08 2009,19:09)
Quote (JAM @ April 05 2009,12:10)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 25 2009,17:07)
The truth is, there'd be little discussion of whether or not natural forces created the face - especially if it turned out to be fairly detailed.  I'm willing to bet that the scientific community would readily accept design and launch right into a search for clues as to the designer's identity.

But Dan, the ID community (including you) has accepted design for biology. Not a single one of them (including you) has "launched right into a search for clues as to the designer's identity."

Why is that? Why don't any of them DO science?
   
Quote

And that's my point.  

That ID isn't science?

I'm searching for and learning about my designer's "identity" (his defining characteristics) every day.  I've learned as much or more about the reality of God from my biochemistry book than I did from years of sermons.  I'm learning that God has invested a lot of thought and energy into life on this planet (relatively speaking of course), which makes me think that he was (and probably is) incredibly invested and involved in this thing we call "life" and that he takes all of this very seriously.

Denial: "Why are you trying to impinge reality upon my fantasies?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2009,19:05   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 08 2009,18:03)
Man cannot make something so interdependent.

Perhaps not, but evolution and co-evolution can.

The point remains that you are simply making a long-winded argument from incredulity. You have no a priori reason to implicate divine intervention, and particularly no a priori reason to implicate your particular deity. All you have is the realization that you don't understand something, and from there you leap to goddidit.

That's really pretty lame.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2009,19:45   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 08 2009,19:23)
Bill,

Why do continue to retreat to empirical science when you know that I have accepted all of your arguments regarding that?

I am not trying to construct a scientific theory.  I am "working" (in my own way) from a theological assumption about origins.  I made that clear on my first post here.  My Argument from Impossibility is based on the premise that a "God of infinite intelligence" created life on this planet.  I said: "if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means".  The premise is the supernatural creation of life on this planet and the prediction is based on that premise.  It's not a scientific argument, it's a theological one.

I know that you already know that.  We've had this same conversation numerous times.

So why?

"Retreat to empirical science?"

That's rich.

To answer your question, you stated,
   
Quote
Just as I can argue however, that natural forces could cause a detailed face on Mars, so too can it be argued (as you well know) that natural forces could make life.  It's an argument that can't be won or lost.  It's a case of prior bias and assumption.  The scientific method actually has nothing to do with it.

You indeed would like the assertion that the origin of life was a natural event to remain merely assumption, reflecting prior bias only, and a question that methodological naturalism cannot address itself to. But that is manifestly not the case: testable hypotheses with bearing on the question arise from the assumption of natural origins can and are being subjected to empirical test. I personally regard it as likely that satisfactory solutions to this unsolved problem will eventually attained by that means.

Otherwise, theological assertions of the kind you make aren't particularly interesting to me. Witness the discussion going on at UD (on the "Michael Shermer" thread). I see hammers, nails, trees, and lots of Jello.

Moreover, you passed over another recent post - so I'll reproduce it in part here:
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 01 2009,19:31)
I feel as if I've realized a fundamental truth.  Both of us (everyone actually) when confronted with a detailed face on Mars, would immediately infer design because we can all imagine a designer on Mars - someone not unlike us.

This is the key to a design inference - the ability to infer a possible designer.  Once that hurdle is cleared, design is readily apparent.  I feel that perhaps I wasn't clear enough about this in my original response - so let me restate it here: It's not the causal history of the object or artifact that is key - it's the causal history of the designer.  We can all supply a hypothetical designer for a face on Mars - only those open to the possibility of God (or some other ancient pre-human intelligence) can do so for life on Earth.

The other main point of my response was that this process of inferring a designer is not a long, methodical, scientific process; it is an instant, intuitive mental process whereby we just say essentially "Yeah, I can believe that".

For me that was a revelation.

All well and good. But some things you should realize:

- I find it immediately and intuitively obvious that descent with modification as originally described by Darwin, and elaborated in the 150 years since, is the author of the incredible variety and complexity of life on earth. Indeed, upon really grasping the argument it struck me as impossible that such processes would not result in the evolution and elaboration of biological forms. For me that was a revelation.

- It is my belief that anyone who fails to see this simply does not grasp the power of selectionist causation.

- It is also my personal belief that life arises whenever and wherever certain circumstances obtain. Not only is life not improbable, it is inevitable. I can believe that. And I do.  

- It is intuitively and directly obvious to me that the ascription of these states of affairs to either accidental or intentional causes commits a category error...

And that's the problem with asserting the "intuitively obvious." Your above assertions are intuitively obvious to you - yet diametrically opposite assertions are intuitively obvious to me. In the arena of these windy generalizations there is no progress to be made asserting and counter asserting such intuitions (although lapses in reasoning are fair game).

Fortunately, the brilliant invention of the scientific method, within the framework of methodological naturalism, works for anyone when properly applied, regardless of which particular brand of hot air animates the philosophical lobe of their cranium squid. None of the above assertions, mine or yours, have any bearing upon that. Therein lies the only real tool for obtaining incremental knowledge with foundations that stand apart from such a prior intuitions. Fortunately, evolutionary biology stands upon and grows by means of this empirical foundation.

[edit for accuracy vis "category error"]

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2009,22:27   

daniel when in the hell are you going to talk about the flood?

until then, we all know you see god in every shadow and corner.  yawn.

go stand on a street corner and preach to people who haven't heard it all before.

what makes you want to post the same old crap over and over?  seriously?

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,02:28   

Quote
daniel when in the hell are you going to talk about the flood?


Indeed Daniel.

Since you posit the shared pre-enlightement Judaic, Christian and Islam  Abrahamic deity and causer of an ancient flood of truly world shatering proportions...

...what scientific test would you propose testing if that apochrophal flood actually took place?

That at least would prove you're god existed at that time, wouldn't it ?

....oh wait the Flood was a Myth, ncht  

....ergo so is your god, then and now.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,02:42   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 08 2009,22:27)
daniel when in the hell are you going to talk about the flood?

until then, we all know you see god in every shadow and corner.  yawn.

go stand on a street corner and preach to people who haven't heard it all before.

what makes you want to post the same old crap over and over?  seriously?

I believe we all want to know why, and that we ought to be told why, and alos what you are hoping to achieve here?

Are you selling your religion? Is that it? Want to convert us? Your God better that ours? Your religion better than mine?

You strike me more like someone clutching at a straw to save his faith and his God.

BTW, we find nothing made by supernatural forces on this planet. All life that we know is descende from previous life, it is an (almost) endless regression. At no point do we detect signs of outside intervention, just life living its life.

Wheh all other arguments have been excercised a thousand times over, we still are left with the question: Why is God such a damn poor designer? And cruel too. (Even) atheists have more compassion.

That are questions you should devote more of your time to. What you have done so far is just wasting both your and our time.

These words of a Gnostic teacher contain infinitely more wisdom than all that you have said here so far:
 
Quote
Omitting to seek after God, and creation, and things similar to these, seek for Him from out of yourself, and learn who it is that absolutely appropriates unto Himself all things in thee, and says, 'My God, my mind, my understanding, my soul, my body.' And learn from whence are sorrow, and joy, and love, and hatred… And if you accurately investigate these points, you will discover him in yourself. (Moimonides)


Read it again, meditate on it.

ETA: infinitely

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,03:11   

Daniel Smith:  
Quote
When we look at a flagellum, we see a God-designed motor.

Sir David Attenborough  
Quote
"They always mean beautiful things like hummingbirds. I always reply by saying that I think of a little child in east Africa with a worm burrowing through his eyeball. The worm cannot live in any other way, except by burrowing through eyeballs. I find that hard to reconcile with the notion of a divine and benevolent creator."

What God-designed part do you see when you look at a eye burrowing worm 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

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,04:36   

Quote
I'm learning that God has invested a lot of thought and energy into life on this planet (relatively speaking of course), which makes me think that he was (and probably is) incredibly invested and involved in this thing we call "life" and that he takes all of this very seriously

If your creator god had "infinite intelligence" as you put it, then how can the creation of the universe have been so damn strenuous for her?  Why would an infinitely powerful and eternal being be so deeply invested in one part of her creation, one which is such an infinitesimally small fraction of her overall work?  If a being has an infinite quantity of something (in this case intelligence), how can there be a "relative" aspect to how much of that something the being invests in any given project?  If I have infinite X, and I expend a trillion units of X doing a task, I still have infinite X.  What's "relatively" large about that trillion-unit project, when I can still do an infinite number of additional projects if I want?  Even if you think you know we're the only life in the universe, what evidence do you have that making us is one of the harder things she ever did?  

It's fascinating how you godbots always want to tell us how unknowable the mind of god is at one moment of convenience, then the next thing we know you're telling us all kinds of things you do know about her.  You tell us you're not here to make a scientific argument, but all you do is make sciencey arguments to scientists about science, telling them their science is wrong because of what you "know" about your unknowable god.  

You're incredibly tedious and I have no idea why so many here are willing to engage you at length when you're clearly acting in bad faith and have no intention of learning anything that would cause the slightest irritation to your delicate and worthless presuppositions.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,05:43   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ April 09 2009,11:36)
You're incredibly tedious and I have no idea why so many here are willing to engage you at length when you're clearly acting in bad faith and have no intention of learning anything that would cause the slightest irritation to your delicate and worthless presuppositions.

Because it's fun.

Well, kinda...

Can get bloody hiritating at times...

But still fun.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,08:00   

denial isn't even that fun to kick around because at some point he admits that he isn't interested in what science does or doesn't say.

he can't even be wrong (or right!) at that level of asshattery.

after following his willingness to participate in empirical arguments in bad faith, by know we all know he is a fraud, a charlatan, a poseur, a facade propped by a charade, a little man in giant drag.

he doesn't care what the facts are.

but RB thinks that is Hawt so there you go.

har har

wake me up with the deluded gets on with the deluge

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,08:41   

Daniel is near his endgame now.

He will either pick up his casock and go back to speakers corner or have to admit that if god was an extraterrestrial present as pure negative time or nothing before the begining of time, surviving the Big Bang and travelling 4.5 billion light years to a wet cool earth to re-arrange amino acids then allowing a self guiding evolutionary process to produce Daniel hisself to sit back in an easy chair and beg an idea.

Why didn't god make us in his image, an invisable space or vacuum at least 14 billion years old.

IT'S A PROJECTION DANIEL, YOUR PROJECTION.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,10:59   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2009,17:05)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 08 2009,18:03)
Man cannot make something so interdependent.

Perhaps not, but evolution and co-evolution can.

The point remains that you are simply making a long-winded argument from incredulity. You have no a priori reason to implicate divine intervention, and particularly no a priori reason to implicate your particular deity. All you have is the realization that you don't understand something, and from there you leap to goddidit.

That's really pretty lame.

I made that leap before I discovered that I didn't understand it.

I feel better about the leap now that I've discovered that nobody understands 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: April 09 2009,11:04   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 08 2009,17:45)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 08 2009,19:23)
Bill,

Why do continue to retreat to empirical science when you know that I have accepted all of your arguments regarding that?

I am not trying to construct a scientific theory.  I am "working" (in my own way) from a theological assumption about origins.  I made that clear on my first post here.  My Argument from Impossibility is based on the premise that a "God of infinite intelligence" created life on this planet.  I said: "if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means".  The premise is the supernatural creation of life on this planet and the prediction is based on that premise.  It's not a scientific argument, it's a theological one.

I know that you already know that.  We've had this same conversation numerous times.

So why?

"Retreat to empirical science?"

That's rich.

To answer your question, you stated,
     
Quote
Just as I can argue however, that natural forces could cause a detailed face on Mars, so too can it be argued (as you well know) that natural forces could make life.  It's an argument that can't be won or lost.  It's a case of prior bias and assumption.  The scientific method actually has nothing to do with it.

You indeed would like the assertion that the origin of life was a natural event to remain merely assumption, reflecting prior bias only, and a question that methodological naturalism cannot address itself to. But that is manifestly not the case: testable hypotheses with bearing on the question arise from the assumption of natural origins can and are being subjected to empirical test. I personally regard it as likely that satisfactory solutions to this unsolved problem will eventually attained by that means.

Otherwise, theological assertions of the kind you make aren't particularly interesting to me. Witness the discussion going on at UD (on the "Michael Shermer" thread). I see hammers, nails, trees, and lots of Jello.

Moreover, you passed over another recent post - so I'll reproduce it in part here:
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 01 2009,19:31)
I feel as if I've realized a fundamental truth.  Both of us (everyone actually) when confronted with a detailed face on Mars, would immediately infer design because we can all imagine a designer on Mars - someone not unlike us.

This is the key to a design inference - the ability to infer a possible designer.  Once that hurdle is cleared, design is readily apparent.  I feel that perhaps I wasn't clear enough about this in my original response - so let me restate it here: It's not the causal history of the object or artifact that is key - it's the causal history of the designer.  We can all supply a hypothetical designer for a face on Mars - only those open to the possibility of God (or some other ancient pre-human intelligence) can do so for life on Earth.

The other main point of my response was that this process of inferring a designer is not a long, methodical, scientific process; it is an instant, intuitive mental process whereby we just say essentially "Yeah, I can believe that".

For me that was a revelation.

All well and good. But some things you should realize:

- I find it immediately and intuitively obvious that descent with modification as originally described by Darwin, and elaborated in the 150 years since, is the author of the incredible variety and complexity of life on earth. Indeed, upon really grasping the argument it struck me as impossible that such processes would not result in the evolution and elaboration of biological forms. For me that was a revelation.

- It is my belief that anyone who fails to see this simply does not grasp the power of selectionist causation.

- It is also my personal belief that life arises whenever and wherever certain circumstances obtain. Not only is life not improbable, it is inevitable. I can believe that. And I do.  

- It is intuitively and directly obvious to me that the ascription of these states of affairs to either accidental or intentional causes commits a category error...

And that's the problem with asserting the "intuitively obvious." Your above assertions are intuitively obvious to you - yet diametrically opposite assertions are intuitively obvious to me. In the arena of these windy generalizations there is no progress to be made asserting and counter asserting such intuitions (although lapses in reasoning are fair game).

Fortunately, the brilliant invention of the scientific method, within the framework of methodological naturalism, works for anyone when properly applied, regardless of which particular brand of hot air animates the philosophical lobe of their cranium squid. None of the above assertions, mine or yours, have any bearing upon that. Therein lies the only real tool for obtaining incremental knowledge with foundations that stand apart from such a prior intuitions. Fortunately, evolutionary biology stands upon and grows by means of this empirical foundation.

[edit for accuracy vis "category error"]

You also found it "intuitively obvious" that a face on Mars had a designer.  

You know full well that the scientific method cannot consider supernatural mechanisms, so the game is rigged in your favor.  I know full well that that's why you retreat to empirical science ("your argument offers nothing scientifically useful"... blah, blah), rather than talk about the inherent biases of our positions.

--------------
"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: April 09 2009,11:07   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ April 09 2009,02:36)
Quote
I'm learning that God has invested a lot of thought and energy into life on this planet (relatively speaking of course), which makes me think that he was (and probably is) incredibly invested and involved in this thing we call "life" and that he takes all of this very seriously

If your creator god had "infinite intelligence" as you put it, then how can the creation of the universe have been so damn strenuous for her?  Why would an infinitely powerful and eternal being be so deeply invested in one part of her creation, one which is such an infinitesimally small fraction of her overall work?  If a being has an infinite quantity of something (in this case intelligence), how can there be a "relative" aspect to how much of that something the being invests in any given project?  If I have infinite X, and I expend a trillion units of X doing a task, I still have infinite X.  What's "relatively" large about that trillion-unit project, when I can still do an infinite number of additional projects if I want?  Even if you think you know we're the only life in the universe, what evidence do you have that making us is one of the harder things she ever did?  

It's fascinating how you godbots always want to tell us how unknowable the mind of god is at one moment of convenience, then the next thing we know you're telling us all kinds of things you do know about her.  You tell us you're not here to make a scientific argument, but all you do is make sciencey arguments to scientists about science, telling them their science is wrong because of what you "know" about your unknowable god.  

You're incredibly tedious and I have no idea why so many here are willing to engage you at length when you're clearly acting in bad faith and have no intention of learning anything that would cause the slightest irritation to your delicate and worthless presuppositions.

So why engage me then?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,11:33   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 09 2009,11:07)
So why engage me then?

It keeps you busy and away from people that might believe your bullshit.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,11:35   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 09 2009,12:04)
You also found it "intuitively obvious" that a face on Mars had a designer.  

Actually, what I did was stipulate, for the sake of discussion, a face that was unquestionably an artifact, and argue that the the possibility of "design detection" in that instance still doesn't help your case.
 
Quote

You know full well that the scientific method cannot consider supernatural mechanisms.

And now you know it too. That is progress.
 
Quote
I know full well that that's why you retreat to empirical science ("your argument offers nothing scientifically useful"... blah, blah), rather than talk about the inherent biases of our positions.

To use one of those weird locutions that born again Christiandom seems wont to invent, I'm an "unbeliever."

Is that what you want to discuss?

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,11:41   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 09 2009,11:04)
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 08 2009,17:45)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 08 2009,19:23)
Bill,

Why do continue to retreat to empirical science when you know that I have accepted all of your arguments regarding that?

I am not trying to construct a scientific theory.  I am "working" (in my own way) from a theological assumption about origins.  I made that clear on my first post here.  My Argument from Impossibility is based on the premise that a "God of infinite intelligence" created life on this planet.  I said: "if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means".  The premise is the supernatural creation of life on this planet and the prediction is based on that premise.  It's not a scientific argument, it's a theological one.

I know that you already know that.  We've had this same conversation numerous times.

So why?

"Retreat to empirical science?"

That's rich.

To answer your question, you stated,
       
Quote
Just as I can argue however, that natural forces could cause a detailed face on Mars, so too can it be argued (as you well know) that natural forces could make life.  It's an argument that can't be won or lost.  It's a case of prior bias and assumption.  The scientific method actually has nothing to do with it.

You indeed would like the assertion that the origin of life was a natural event to remain merely assumption, reflecting prior bias only, and a question that methodological naturalism cannot address itself to. But that is manifestly not the case: testable hypotheses with bearing on the question arise from the assumption of natural origins can and are being subjected to empirical test. I personally regard it as likely that satisfactory solutions to this unsolved problem will eventually attained by that means.

Otherwise, theological assertions of the kind you make aren't particularly interesting to me. Witness the discussion going on at UD (on the "Michael Shermer" thread). I see hammers, nails, trees, and lots of Jello.

Moreover, you passed over another recent post - so I'll reproduce it in part here:
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 01 2009,19:31)
I feel as if I've realized a fundamental truth.  Both of us (everyone actually) when confronted with a detailed face on Mars, would immediately infer design because we can all imagine a designer on Mars - someone not unlike us.

This is the key to a design inference - the ability to infer a possible designer.  Once that hurdle is cleared, design is readily apparent.  I feel that perhaps I wasn't clear enough about this in my original response - so let me restate it here: It's not the causal history of the object or artifact that is key - it's the causal history of the designer.  We can all supply a hypothetical designer for a face on Mars - only those open to the possibility of God (or some other ancient pre-human intelligence) can do so for life on Earth.

The other main point of my response was that this process of inferring a designer is not a long, methodical, scientific process; it is an instant, intuitive mental process whereby we just say essentially "Yeah, I can believe that".

For me that was a revelation.

All well and good. But some things you should realize:

- I find it immediately and intuitively obvious that descent with modification as originally described by Darwin, and elaborated in the 150 years since, is the author of the incredible variety and complexity of life on earth. Indeed, upon really grasping the argument it struck me as impossible that such processes would not result in the evolution and elaboration of biological forms. For me that was a revelation.

- It is my belief that anyone who fails to see this simply does not grasp the power of selectionist causation.

- It is also my personal belief that life arises whenever and wherever certain circumstances obtain. Not only is life not improbable, it is inevitable. I can believe that. And I do.  

- It is intuitively and directly obvious to me that the ascription of these states of affairs to either accidental or intentional causes commits a category error...

And that's the problem with asserting the "intuitively obvious." Your above assertions are intuitively obvious to you - yet diametrically opposite assertions are intuitively obvious to me. In the arena of these windy generalizations there is no progress to be made asserting and counter asserting such intuitions (although lapses in reasoning are fair game).

Fortunately, the brilliant invention of the scientific method, within the framework of methodological naturalism, works for anyone when properly applied, regardless of which particular brand of hot air animates the philosophical lobe of their cranium squid. None of the above assertions, mine or yours, have any bearing upon that. Therein lies the only real tool for obtaining incremental knowledge with foundations that stand apart from such a prior intuitions. Fortunately, evolutionary biology stands upon and grows by means of this empirical foundation.

[edit for accuracy vis "category error"]

You also found it "intuitively obvious" that a face on Mars had a designer.  

You know full well that the scientific method cannot consider supernatural mechanisms, so the game is rigged in your favor.  I know full well that that's why you retreat to empirical science ("your argument offers nothing scientifically useful"... blah, blah), rather than talk about the inherent biases of our positions.

jesus what a dishonest little cunt

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

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

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,11:43   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 09 2009,11:07)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ April 09 2009,02:36)
 
Quote
I'm learning that God has invested a lot of thought and energy into life on this planet (relatively speaking of course), which makes me think that he was (and probably is) incredibly invested and involved in this thing we call "life" and that he takes all of this very seriously

If your creator god had "infinite intelligence" as you put it, then how can the creation of the universe have been so damn strenuous for her?  Why would an infinitely powerful and eternal being be so deeply invested in one part of her creation, one which is such an infinitesimally small fraction of her overall work?  If a being has an infinite quantity of something (in this case intelligence), how can there be a "relative" aspect to how much of that something the being invests in any given project?  If I have infinite X, and I expend a trillion units of X doing a task, I still have infinite X.  What's "relatively" large about that trillion-unit project, when I can still do an infinite number of additional projects if I want?  Even if you think you know we're the only life in the universe, what evidence do you have that making us is one of the harder things she ever did?  

It's fascinating how you godbots always want to tell us how unknowable the mind of god is at one moment of convenience, then the next thing we know you're telling us all kinds of things you do know about her.  You tell us you're not here to make a scientific argument, but all you do is make sciencey arguments to scientists about science, telling them their science is wrong because of what you "know" about your unknowable god.  

You're incredibly tedious and I have no idea why so many here are willing to engage you at length when you're clearly acting in bad faith and have no intention of learning anything that would cause the slightest irritation to your delicate and worthless presuppositions.

So why engage me then?

i've been saying "Piss On You" for about 15 pages.

but you know why you are engaged....

Duhhhhhhh Fluuuuuuuuuuuud

we've more or less tolerated your stupidity, patiently, for 26 pages.  we need the pay off.  the money shot.  air tight, hon.  pay up now.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,11:43   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 09 2009,10:59)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2009,17:05)


The point remains that you are simply making a long-winded argument from incredulity. You have no a priori reason to implicate divine intervention, and particularly no a priori reason to implicate your particular deity. All you have is the realization that you don't understand something, and from there you leap to goddidit.

That's really pretty lame.

I made that leap before I discovered that I didn't understand it.

Which does not make it any more logical, or reasonable, unfortunately. It's still an argument from incredulity, and basically worthless as a result.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,12:47   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 09 2009,10:59)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2009,17:05)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 08 2009,18:03)
Man cannot make something so interdependent.

Perhaps not, but evolution and co-evolution can.

The point remains that you are simply making a long-winded argument from incredulity. You have no a priori reason to implicate divine intervention, and particularly no a priori reason to implicate your particular deity. All you have is the realization that you don't understand something, and from there you leap to goddidit.

That's really pretty lame.

I made that leap before I discovered that I didn't understand it.

I feel better about the leap now that I've discovered that nobody understands it.

And when somebody *does* meet your ever-shifting challenges -- why, then you just move the goalpost again. Or employ some other bit of fallacy / illogic (for variety, I suppose)

All merely to preserve your ego-based fantasy. Well, hey... whatever you need to get you through the night.

Howsabout Ye Olde Fludde?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,12:57   

Daniel, you said this
 
Quote
   
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 09 2008,05:15)
Hey Daniel,
Seeing as things have taken a turn for the off-topic, perhaps you could answer a few simple questions that'll allow the lurkers to decide if you are sincere?

a) How old is the earth?
b) How old is the solar system?
c) How old is the universe?

I don't know.  I haven't really studied both sides of the whole "age of the earth" debate, so I'm not prepared to give an answer on those.
       
Quote
d) Did man and dinosaur share the planet at the same time?

It's possible, but again I don't know.
       
Quote
e) Did every human but 8 die in a global flood?

I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it.  My main reason for believing it (other than the bible), is that the landscape looks like the aftermath of massive flood runoff when viewed from the air.  Not very scientific, I know but that's where I'm at.  (insert joke here)
       
Quote
f) Does the "designer" actively "interfere" with the day to day running of the universe?
g) If "yes" to f) then how come we've not noticed?

Again it's possible, although it is equally possible that he planned everything out in advance, and it is just unfolding accordingly.
I definitely don't have all the answers and my opinions are in a constant state of flux.


Made any decisions yet about what is possible and what is impossible?

Why don't you go and study "both sides of the whole age of the earth debate" and get back to us? Still think it's possible that man and dino lived at the same time? Really?

Age of the earth.

Global flood.

It's all good.

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

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,15:01   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 09 2009,12:07)
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ April 09 2009,02:36)
Quote
I'm learning that God has invested a lot of thought and energy into life on this planet (relatively speaking of course), which makes me think that he was (and probably is) incredibly invested and involved in this thing we call "life" and that he takes all of this very seriously

If your creator god had "infinite intelligence" as you put it, then how can the creation of the universe have been so damn strenuous for her?  Why would an infinitely powerful and eternal being be so deeply invested in one part of her creation, one which is such an infinitesimally small fraction of her overall work?  If a being has an infinite quantity of something (in this case intelligence), how can there be a "relative" aspect to how much of that something the being invests in any given project?  If I have infinite X, and I expend a trillion units of X doing a task, I still have infinite X.  What's "relatively" large about that trillion-unit project, when I can still do an infinite number of additional projects if I want?  Even if you think you know we're the only life in the universe, what evidence do you have that making us is one of the harder things she ever did?  

It's fascinating how you godbots always want to tell us how unknowable the mind of god is at one moment of convenience, then the next thing we know you're telling us all kinds of things you do know about her.  You tell us you're not here to make a scientific argument, but all you do is make sciencey arguments to scientists about science, telling them their science is wrong because of what you "know" about your unknowable god.  

You're incredibly tedious and I have no idea why so many here are willing to engage you at length when you're clearly acting in bad faith and have no intention of learning anything that would cause the slightest irritation to your delicate and worthless presuppositions.

So why engage me then?

Because your snappy rhetorical retorts are so devastating.

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,16:50   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 09 2009,11:57)
Still think it's possible that man and dino lived at the same time? Really?

In the... town of Bedrock...

:p

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,22:00   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 09 2009,11:43)
we've more or less tolerated your stupidity, patiently, for 26 pages.  we need the pay off.  the money shot.  air tight, hon.  pay up now.

Not sure if I have my url correct, so this may not work:



If that doesn't work, I got that from here: here's teh money shot by sophia232

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,22:03   

Quote (Badger3k @ April 09 2009,22:00)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 09 2009,11:43)
we've more or less tolerated your stupidity, patiently, for 26 pages.  we need the pay off.  the money shot.  air tight, hon.  pay up now.

Not sure if I have my url correct, so this may not work:



If that doesn't work, I got that from here: here's teh money shot by sophia232

One more try:



If this doesn't work, I give up.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,22:17   

Quote (Badger3k @ April 09 2009,22:03)
Quote (Badger3k @ April 09 2009,22:00)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 09 2009,11:43)
we've more or less tolerated your stupidity, patiently, for 26 pages.  we need the pay off.  the money shot.  air tight, hon.  pay up now.

Not sure if I have my url correct, so this may not work:



If that doesn't work, I got that from here: here's teh money shot by sophia232

One more try:



If this doesn't work, I give up.

Ok, so I lied.  One Last Time (just like Daniel, eh?)

If this doesn't work, I'll retire and hang my head in shame.  Maybe I'll forget how to program the vcr.

The Picture - can't figure out how to post it directly since my hard drive crashed

what's a vcr......

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2009,23:24   



yeah that one!!!!!   gooooootun!

how about it Denial?

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2009,11:03   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 09 2009,09:43)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 09 2009,10:59)
 
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2009,17:05)


The point remains that you are simply making a long-winded argument from incredulity. You have no a priori reason to implicate divine intervention, and particularly no a priori reason to implicate your particular deity. All you have is the realization that you don't understand something, and from there you leap to goddidit.

That's really pretty lame.

I made that leap before I discovered that I didn't understand it.

Which does not make it any more logical, or reasonable, unfortunately. It's still an argument from incredulity, and basically worthless as a result.

Nice snip.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2009,11:17   

Quote (Denial Smith @ April 10 2009,11:03)
     
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 09 2009,09:43)
     
Quote (Denial Smith @ April 09 2009,10:59)
         
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2009,17:05)


The point remains that you are simply making a long-winded argument from incredulity. You have no a priori reason to implicate divine intervention, and particularly no a priori reason to implicate your particular deity. All you have is the realization that you don't understand something, and from there you leap to goddidit.

That's really pretty lame.

I made that leap before I discovered that I didn't understand it.

Which does not make it any more logical, or reasonable, unfortunately. It's still an argument from incredulity, and basically worthless as a result.

Nice snip.

The single sentence I snipped has no bearing on whether your argument from incredulity is valid or not. But since you seem to think so, I'll include the unsnipped part here, and you can tell me how it helps your position. Or you can man up and discuss the point of my comment, which is that arguments from incredulity seem to be all you've got.
 
Quote (Denial Smith @ April 09 2009,10:59)
I feel better about the leap now that I've discovered that nobody understands it.


--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2009,11:41   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 10 2009,11:17)
The single sentence I snipped has no bearing on whether your argument from incredulity is valid or not. But since you seem to think so, I'll include the unsnipped part here, and you can tell me how it helps your position. Or you can man up and discuss the point of my comment, which is that arguments from incredulity seem to be all you've got.
 

To be fair to Denial, he has other mighty powerful arguments -- the Post Hoc fallacy, bare assertions, False dilemmas, faulty premises, argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad populum, begging the question and many, many more.

Chew on that, evos!!!11!

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2009,12:25   

Quote (deadman_932 @ April 10 2009,17:41)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 10 2009,11:17)
The single sentence I snipped has no bearing on whether your argument from incredulity is valid or not. But since you seem to think so, I'll include the unsnipped part here, and you can tell me how it helps your position. Or you can man up and discuss the point of my comment, which is that arguments from incredulity seem to be all you've got.
 

To be fair to Denial, he has other mighty powerful arguments -- the Post Hoc fallacy, bare assertions, False dilemmas, faulty premises, argumentum ad nauseam, argumentum ad populum, begging the question and many, many more.

Chew on that, evos!!!11!

Indeed there is no childish phallusy Denial will not twiddle with.

Which, strangely, brings me back to my comment re: his status as a child molester. I seem to remember me making the claim that it is impossible for him to prove he is not a child molester. I wonder if Denial is capable of seeing a) how it maps in form to his own "arguments" and b) why it is erroneous.

I may be wondering for some time.

Louis

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2009,18:55   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 09 2009,09:35)
           
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 09 2009,12:04)
You also found it "intuitively obvious" that a face on Mars had a designer.  

Actually, what I did was stipulate, for the sake of discussion, a face that was unquestionably an artifact, and argue that the the possibility of "design detection" in that instance still doesn't help your case.

Here's what you initially said:            
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 23 2009,18:18)

The form of a human face found on Mars (say, carved into a mountainside) would of necessity be a representation. As such it would be characterized by "borrowed" intentionality (intentionality in Brentano's sense*). The only plausible causal story for the appearance of such a representation on Mars would be an agent capable of of such representation and such intentionality. Therefore, we are already some distance to inferring an agent much like ourselves, capable of sophisticated representation.
*Daniel: Brentano's intentionality is not equivalent to "intentions" in the colloquial sense. It refers to the special quality of some physical systems (such as human brains) that they can have states that are "about" other states of affairs in the world - essentially, representation. This is "Brentano's intentionality."

So your first response was that a likeness of a human face on Mars would "of necessity" be a representation and would therefore require a designer as "the only plausible causal story".
You invented a causal history for this face based on a similarity to human faces.  Your did not stipulate that it was "unquestionably an artifact" except in your minds eye.  At this point all we knew was that it looked like a human face.

Your next post on the subject:          
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 25 2009,16:44)

So ID utters "design" upon confronting complex biological phenomena, but, unlike the sort of causal story we can infer for Stonehenge on Mars (creatures not unlike ourselves, with a history not unlike our own is the causal story we would infer), ID has nothing to offer - absolutely nothing - when asked for the causal story for biology it is labeling "design."

This time you're talking about our previous Stonehenge on Mars discussion.  This time there is no representation.  Your previous argument doesn't apply and you still did not stipulate that it was "unquestionably an artifact".  Yet you stick to your design inference.  Hmm...

Your next 2 posts on the subject:          
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 27 2009,10:20)
 
Objects similar to those we create (such as those that reflect representation, as in a clear representation of a face) suggest the inference to a causal story similar to that underlying human artifacts (the artifact was devised by agents capable of representation). That is a reasonable hypothesis, not a conclusion.

The discovery of such an object on Mars would trigger a search for additional evidence of the creation of an artifact by means and for purposes similar to those deployed by human beings.


The search may not yield further evidence, in which case our conclusion may be "we don't know the origins of this object." The hypothesis would remain reasonable, but unconfirmed.
           
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Mar. 28 2009,07:27)
I unambiguously stated that a clearly representational face on Mars would indeed suggest the inference to a causal story similar to that which underlies representational human artifacts. It would trigger a search for further evidence in support that inference, e.g., evidence for agents similar to ourselves in their employment of representation.

Let me ask you this:  If the face (or Stonehenge) is "unquestionably an artifact", then why do you portray that as a "hypothesis, not a conclusion"?  This does not support your contention that "what I did was stipulate, for the sake of discussion, a face that was unquestionably an artifact".   In fact, you seem to be backtracking a bit here from your unquestioned design inference.  Now, the face may or may not be designed - depending on whether we find supporting evidence for possible designers.

BTW, I'm not arguing for a system of design detection with all of this.  I'm pointing out that design is intuitively inferred by anyone who can infer a plausible designer.

IOW, if your mind can rationalize a designer, design is self-evident.
               
Quote
           
Quote

You know full well that the scientific method cannot consider supernatural mechanisms.

And now you know it too. That is progress.

Why then do you keep insisting that I subject a non-scientific theory of supernatural causation to a methodology that cannot test for supernatural causation?              
Quote
         
Quote
I know full well that that's why you retreat to empirical science ("your argument offers nothing scientifically useful"... blah, blah), rather than talk about the inherent biases of our positions.

To use one of those weird locutions that born again Christiandom seems wont to invent, I'm an "unbeliever."

Is that what you want to discuss?

Yes.  It's my contention that your "unbelief" prevents you from seeing the design all around you.

--------------
"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: April 10 2009,19:01   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 10 2009,09:17)
 
Quote (Denial Smith @ April 10 2009,11:03)
       
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 09 2009,09:43)
         
Quote (Denial Smith @ April 09 2009,10:59)
           
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 08 2009,17:05)


The point remains that you are simply making a long-winded argument from incredulity. You have no a priori reason to implicate divine intervention, and particularly no a priori reason to implicate your particular deity. All you have is the realization that you don't understand something, and from there you leap to goddidit.

That's really pretty lame.

I made that leap before I discovered that I didn't understand it.

Which does not make it any more logical, or reasonable, unfortunately. It's still an argument from incredulity, and basically worthless as a result.

Nice snip.

The single sentence I snipped has no bearing on whether your argument from incredulity is valid or not. But since you seem to think so, I'll include the unsnipped part here, and you can tell me how it helps your position. Or you can man up and discuss the point of my comment, which is that arguments from incredulity seem to be all you've got.
     
Quote (Denial Smith @ April 09 2009,10:59)
I feel better about the leap now that I've discovered that nobody understands it.

My point is that everyone is using an argument from incredulity to some degree - even you.

The only difference is that it's often used in reverse: "We don't understand it but it must be true as there is no natural alternative".

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2009,19:06   

denial is one of the most pomo fundies i have ever met.

the flood, or prove you aren't a child molestor.

since i have acknowledged that you can't prove you are a child molestor and that no one can prove you aren't, then i have felt a lot better about everything.  don't snip that part out, luv.

you aren't even an entertaining troll, buttsniff.  we liked you better as VMartin.

ETA  to not be so presumptuous.  I liked you better as VMartin.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2009,20:01   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 10 2009,19:55)
IOW, if your mind can rationalize a designer, design is self-evident.

My response to this is to repeat my very first post on the topic (IIRC), which appeared on November 25th:

 
Quote
I'm willing to stipulate that we find an object on Mars and "design detection" works. We conclude correctly that it is an artifact.

An argument within the ID movement all along has been "see, we do design detection all the time - in forensics, in archeology, in SETI, and in StonehengediscoveryonMars. So a science of design detection is legitimate."

But that fails to help the argument that we can detect a designer behind the origins of biological organisms. Ordinary design detection works either because we are so familiar with the designers and their methods and purposes that the characteristics of that design activity are easily recognized, or because we infer agents (aliens on Mars, say) similar to ourselves in means and motives, and have a real prospect of discovering more about the existence and characteristics of those agents, or perhaps even encountering them. We also understand that their design efforts likely have a causal history similar to our own, and are constrained by natural law. Nothing supernatural need be posited. Therefore we can make inferences and predictions about these unknown designers and gather further artifacts and observations to learn more about them and their history.

The sort of supernatural designer that Daniel espouses (when he is honest about it - lets, see, this is Tuesday) as required for biological organisms has no characteristics (such as means, motives or causal history) we can assign by way of inference or analogy to ourselves, and is not constrained by natural law. Therefore the analogy to human design fails. We have no means to draw inferences about the designer, or his means, motives, mechanisms, history and constraints, and therefore have no basis from which to draw unique inferences and make further predictions and observations.


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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2009,20:48   

characteristics of design is unimportant.

"designed" is what it's all about for this guy.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2009,21:06   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 10 2009,19:01)
My point is that everyone is using an argument from incredulity to some degree - even you.

The only difference is that it's often used in reverse: "We don't understand it but it must be true as there is no natural alternative".

No, you mendacious twat, neither I nor anyone else here (besides you) is arguing that because we don't understand something in videographic detail, it means that goddidit or that it will never be understood. Saying "I don't know" is not the same thing as insisting that you do know, and what you know is that goddidit.

Your 'arguments' are not enhanced by the fact that you were incredulous before you opened a biochemistry book.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2009,21:31   

he's just lookin fer a reason, albie.  and all the reasons to quit can't out number all the reasons why

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2009,03:11   

Quote
BTW, I'm not arguing for a system of design detection with all of this.  I'm pointing out that design is intuitively inferred by anyone who can infer a plausible designer.

Is there any field of human thought where we cannot apply this method? Just infer whatever you find plausible and whatever becomes intuitively inferrable.

A great intellectual tool for any scientist whenever he is up against a problem.

Like questions about QM, chaos, fractals, complexity, self-organization, no more problems...

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Falk Macara



Posts: 11
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2009,04:24   

Hey Dan (you don't mind if I call you Dan, do you?)

Assume, for an instant, that you're correct, and assume you (or someone from your camp) does some research and manages to find some scientific evidence to support ID.  Hell, while we're in fantasy land#, let's also assume that this evidence does not merely support ID, it catapults it to the top of the pile*.

So...

Who designed the intelligent designer?

#: The fantasy land where you find evidence, not the fantasy land where you do research.
*:  And while we're dreaming, maybe cures baldness.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2009,05:01   

Quote
Who designed the intelligent designer?


According to The Devil's Dictionary


Brahma

 
Quote
BRAHMA, n.
He who created the Hindoos, who are preserved by Vishnu and destroyed by Siva -- a rather neater division of labor than is found among the deities of some other nations. The Abracadabranese, for example, are created by Sin, maintained by Theft and destroyed by Folly. The priests of Brahma, like those of Abracadabranese, are holy and learned men who are never naughty.

   O Brahma, thou rare old Divinity,
   First Person of the Hindoo Trinity,
   You sit there so calm and securely,
   With feet folded up so demurely --
   You're the First Person Singular, surely.
                                                       Polydore Smith




--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2009,05:14   

Quote (k.e.. @ April 11 2009,12:01)
Quote
Who designed the intelligent designer?


According to The Devil's Dictionary


Brahma

   
Quote
BRAHMA, n.
He who created the Hindoos, who are preserved by Vishnu and destroyed by Siva -- a rather neater division of labor than is found among the deities of some other nations. The Abracadabranese, for example, are created by Sin, maintained by Theft and destroyed by Folly. The priests of Brahma, like those of Abracadabranese, are holy and learned men who are never naughty.

   O Brahma, thou rare old Divinity,
   First Person of the Hindoo Trinity,
   You sit there so calm and securely,
   With feet folded up so demurely --
   You're the First Person Singular, surely.
                                                       Polydore Smith



Wow! That Smith quote is almost up to the McGonagall level!

So...who designed Brahma?

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2009,06:31   

Quote
So...who designed Brahma?


According to Hindu Mythology

In the begining there was I
I was lonely so I created Brahma to keep it company


--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2009,07:58   

The "I" btw is equivalent to the western ego or in Jungian metaphysical terms the Monad or in Zen "the now"...I could go on.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2009,08:16   

That is an interesting philosophic point.

but will it stirr any thoughts in Denial's mind?

I bet not!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2009,08:53   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 11 2009,16:16)
That is an interesting philosophic point.

but will it stirr any thoughts in Denial's mind?

I bet not!

Only if he read it literaly.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2009,19:40   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 10 2009,18:01)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 10 2009,19:55)
IOW, if your mind can rationalize a designer, design is self-evident.

My response to this is to repeat my very first post on the topic (IIRC), which appeared on November 25th:

           
Quote
I'm willing to stipulate that we find an object on Mars and "design detection" works. We conclude correctly that it is an artifact.

An argument within the ID movement all along has been "see, we do design detection all the time - in forensics, in archeology, in SETI, and in StonehengediscoveryonMars. So a science of design detection is legitimate."

But that fails to help the argument that we can detect a designer behind the origins of biological organisms. Ordinary design detection works either because we are so familiar with the designers and their methods and purposes that the characteristics of that design activity are easily recognized, or because we infer agents (aliens on Mars, say) similar to ourselves in means and motives, and have a real prospect of discovering more about the existence and characteristics of those agents, or perhaps even encountering them. We also understand that their design efforts likely have a causal history similar to our own, and are constrained by natural law. Nothing supernatural need be posited. Therefore we can make inferences and predictions about these unknown designers and gather further artifacts and observations to learn more about them and their history.

The sort of supernatural designer that Daniel espouses (when he is honest about it - lets, see, this is Tuesday) as required for biological organisms has no characteristics (such as means, motives or causal history) we can assign by way of inference or analogy to ourselves, and is not constrained by natural law. Therefore the analogy to human design fails. We have no means to draw inferences about the designer, or his means, motives, mechanisms, history and constraints, and therefore have no basis from which to draw unique inferences and make further predictions and observations.

I don't think you're even trying anymore Bill.

I specifically said that I wasn't using the Mars example as an example of design detection.  

I was using the Mars example as a picture of how our biases determine whether we even consider design.  You touch a bit on that fact when you say "The sort of supernatural designer that Daniel espouses... has no characteristics (such as means, motives or causal history) we can assign by way of inference or analogy to ourselves".

You confirm my point.  Your mind only allows for a designer "like us" because you don't believe there is a possibility for any other type.  Your mind readily infers a designer "like us" for an artifact on Mars, you cannot imagine a designer "like us" for life on Earth.

Every single person who espouses ID, has already accepted the possibility of an entity capable of producing life on this planet.  We who have done so, can infer means, motives and causal histories for that designer - you cannot.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2009,20:11   

all right all right all right

goddammit

I did it.

that's right, I designed all the life on this planet.

you finally have convinced me that you're right, denial, there is a designer we can imagine.

me.

me.

me, that's who.

now shut the fuck up about everything but the flood or the part where you prove you are not a kiddy fiddler.  you can't prove you aren't a MONSTER

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

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2009,20:28   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 11 2009,20:40)
Every single person who espouses ID, has already accepted the possibility of an entity capable of producing life on this planet.  We who have done so, can infer means, motives and causal histories for that designer - you cannot.

so why are you afraid of the questions you've been asked?

where is your evidence?

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2009,20:55   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 11 2009,20:40)
I don't think you're even trying anymore Bill.

You're right. I guess I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around your claim that the scientific uselessness of your position is a virtue
Quote
Every single person who espouses ID, has already accepted the possibility of an entity capable of producing life on this planet.  We who have done so, can infer means, motives and causal histories for that designer - you cannot.

Ok, dudes, party like it's 1999!

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2009,21:10   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 11 2009,20:40)
You confirm my point.  Your mind only allows for a designer "like us" because you don't believe there is a possibility for any other type.  Your mind readily infers a designer "like us" for an artifact on Mars, you cannot imagine a designer "like us" for life on Earth.

BTW, of course I can "imagine" a designer like us, or like God, as the author of life on earth. I just don't happen to believe there was one. Nor do I believe that the proposition can be meaningfully investigated. If you think it can, then knock yourself out.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2009,21:17   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 11 2009,20:55)
You're right. I guess I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around your claim that the scientific uselessness of your position is a virtue.

enshrining bullshit on a pedestal behind a glass where it may not be inspected is not virtuous?

depends on which side of the glass you are on, i suppose.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2009,02:43   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 12 2009,05:17)
 
Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 11 2009,20:55)
You're right. I guess I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around your claim that the scientific uselessness of your position is a virtue.

enshrining bullshit on a pedestal behind a glass where it may not be inspected is not virtuous?

depends on which side of the glass you are on, i suppose.

Indeed Marcel Duchamp invented a machine to illustrate that very point.

Link below has no direct linky so navigate to the animation of The Large Glass

Understanding Duchamp

 
Quote
"The Large Glass has been called a love machine, but it is actually a machine of suffering. Its upper and lower realms are separated from each other forever by a horizon designated as the 'bride's clothes.' The bride is hanging, perhaps from a rope, in an isolated cage, or crucified. The bachelors remain below, left only with the possibility of churning, agonized masturbation."


Daniel....... you will learn more from or by understanding Duchamp than grinding on with your cockeyed view of biology.

If nothing more than how a conceptual model uses signs to represent signifiers.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2009,04:16   

Quote
Every single person who espouses ID, has already accepted the possibility of an entity capable of producing life on this planet.  We who have done so, can infer means, motives and causal histories for that designer - you cannot.

All right. (yawn)

Every single person who espouses X has already accepted the possibility of Y. We who have done so can infer Z – you cannot.

Replace X, Y and Z with whatever you fancy. I fancy the FSM, Daniel fancies the lunatic god Yahweh. Leave science out of it; isn’t it fantastic how God has prepared the world for us: anything is possible – you just gotta have faith.

I have asked before but don’t expect an answer: Why is Daniel here, what’s his goal, what’s the purpose? He might as well attempt converting us to solipsism.

How I wish for him to accept our challenge: The Flood. What’s he afraid of? Be a good boy, Daniel, please tell: Do you believe in The Flood? You espouse ID; aren't you gonna espouse The Flood too?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2009,05:22   

Quote (Quack @ April 12 2009,04:16)
Why is Daniel here, what’s his goal, what’s the purpose? He might as well attempt converting us to solipsism.

"Denialism" is such an apt term for his particular solipsistic navel-gazing.

This oozed forth many times in his posts, particularly when, on one hand, he claims scientists are to judge on matters scientific, EXCEPT -- on the other hand -- when it conflicts with the Prophet Denial.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2009,07:14   

k.e.. yoo too crazy.  luvved that.  learnt me sumtin ALREADY today, now i am going to go take a sweet youngun dry land fishing.

cordyceps, denial, is a design that i can imagine making.  but i am a seriously sick fuck.

EDA the duchamp reference is even more apropos since Denial is almost even odds with being a poe troller GoP or VMartin.

from duh wiki wiki wiki wiki wiki

Quote
However, modern critics see the painting as an expression of the artist to ridicule criticism. Marjorie Perloff interprets the painting as "enigmatic" (34) in her piece "The Poetics of Indeterminacy: Rimbaud to Cage" (Princeton UP: 1999). She concludes that Duchamp's "'Large Glass' is also a critique of the very criticism it inspires, mocking the solemnity of the explicator who is determined to find the key" (34). Hence, she follows the school of deconstruction established by the French philosopher Derrida and helps to break down the hegemony of interpretation held by the Enlightenment bourgeoisie. To quote the artist: "I believe that the artist doesn't know what he does. I attach even more importance to the spectator than to the artist."


hence denial's fascination with the ontological status of "designed" and absolutely not a care in the world about "design".

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2009,09:25   

Quote
I attach even more importance to the spectator than to the artist


Selling wall paper (art), cars or preachin' are pretty much the same thing .....all you need to do is qualify the buyer.

The customers make martyrs out of themselves as Dembski, Goebbels or Machiavelli and for that matter Christ if the myths are to be believed quite self consciously  found out.

To TARDS it's called revelation to me it could be a drunken 80 year old sitar busker from the Punjab who claims swami-ness by business card.

ETA: Great art reads the reader its a 2 way street.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2009,15:55   

Quote
drunken 80 year old sitar busker from the Punjab who claims swami-ness by business card.


in asheville NC there is the most unexpected and fantastic death speed whatever metal guitar player embodied in a 40 year old homeless black man who happens to be a pan handler and bum.  he also told me he was jesus.  after i have heard him playing i am not so sure that you can write the guy off.  

i like bums with skills.  that is a different thing altogether.  that's what sucks about this town, all the bums are a bunch of no talent hacks

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 12 2009,16:10   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 12 2009,23:55)
Quote
drunken 80 year old sitar busker from the Punjab who claims swami-ness by business card.


in asheville NC there is the most unexpected and fantastic death speed whatever metal guitar player embodied in a 40 year old homeless black man who happens to be a pan handler and bum.  he also told me he was jesus.  after i have heard him playing i am not so sure that you can write the guy off.  

i like bums with skills.  that is a different thing altogether.  that's what sucks about this town, all the bums are a bunch of no talent hacks

That figures ......the money lenders won this time 'round.

Looks like we'll all have to wait for his 3rd coming.

Now that the virgin birth is widely available it shouldn't be that long this time.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2009,04:21   

Quote
I attach even more importance to the spectator than to the artist

Seems to me that has been said before:

The eye of the beholder


--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2009,18:19   

Quote (rhmc @ April 11 2009,18:28)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 11 2009,20:40)
Every single person who espouses ID, has already accepted the possibility of an entity capable of producing life on this planet.  We who have done so, can infer means, motives and causal histories for that designer - you cannot.

so why are you afraid of the questions you've been asked?

where is your evidence?

Which questions are you talking about?

If it's questions about "teh flud" or child molestation, I think your answer is self-evident.

--------------
"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: April 13 2009,18:21   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 11 2009,18:55)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 11 2009,20:40)
I don't think you're even trying anymore Bill.

You're right. I guess I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around your claim that the scientific uselessness of your position is a virtue

And I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around your apparent belief that the scientific method is the only means to discovery.

Man does not live by science alone Bill.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2009,18:30   

show us how you know that....

without using the machinery of science.

RB are you converted yet, or are you going to continue your retreat to empirical knowledge?

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2009,18:33   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 11 2009,19:10)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 11 2009,20:40)
You confirm my point.  Your mind only allows for a designer "like us" because you don't believe there is a possibility for any other type.  Your mind readily infers a designer "like us" for an artifact on Mars, you cannot imagine a designer "like us" for life on Earth.

BTW, of course I can "imagine" a designer like us, or like God, as the author of life on earth. I just don't happen to believe there was one. Nor do I believe that the proposition can be meaningfully investigated. If you think it can, then knock yourself out.

And by "meaningfully investigated" you mean "scientifically investigated" don't you?  

And by "scientifically investigated" you mean "investigated within a framework that excludes the supernatural" don't you?

So we're back to biases and beliefs.  Your unbelief prevents you from considering God as a possibility and your appeals to science cement your biases in place.

Man is more than molecules Bill.  Your own thoughts attest to the majesty of God but you drown them in a sea of science.

--------------
"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: April 13 2009,18:36   

Quote (deadman_932 @ April 12 2009,03:22)
 
Quote (Quack @ April 12 2009,04:16)
Why is Daniel here, what’s his goal, what’s the purpose? He might as well attempt converting us to solipsism.

"Denialism" is such an apt term for his particular solipsistic navel-gazing.

This oozed forth many times in his posts, particularly when, on one hand, he claims scientists are to judge on matters scientific, EXCEPT -- on the other hand -- when it conflicts with the Prophet Denial.

Strawman.

--------------
"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: April 13 2009,18:39   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 13 2009,16:30)
show us how you know that....

without using the machinery of science.

RB are you converted yet, or are you going to continue your retreat to empirical knowledge?

How much of what you "know" is actually based on empirical knowledge?

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

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2009,19:02   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 13 2009,19:19)
Quote (rhmc @ April 11 2009,18:28)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 11 2009,20:40)
Every single person who espouses ID, has already accepted the possibility of an entity capable of producing life on this planet.  We who have done so, can infer means, motives and causal histories for that designer - you cannot.

so why are you afraid of the questions you've been asked?

where is your evidence?

Which questions are you talking about?

If it's questions about "teh flud" or child molestation, I think your answer is self-evident.

the flood would be a question that you've continued to dodge.  

you've been asked many others as well that you have refused to answer.

why?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2009,20:14   

inasmuch as anything can be known, Denial, all of it.

punt around what to know means all you wish, sophist.

the only method that is demonstrable and reliable is the one that has zero amount of special revelation, just measurable palpable material.  

if there is more to it than that, it's up in the air.  but we own the lower bound.  you are pointing at sky giraffes.

if man is more than molecules, you should be able to demonstrate that.  you can't, you just say it a bit louder when pressed.

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

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2009,21:49   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 13 2009,19:33)
And by "meaningfully investigated" you mean "scientifically investigated" don't you?

I intend that I don't find wishful fabrications of the sort you and yours engage in productive or meaningful.

That is absolutely my bias.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2009,21:59   

Quote
if man is more than molecules, you should be able to demonstrate that.


Oh, it's also the arrangement of those molecules. Actually, the arrangement may be more important than the molecules themselves, especially considering that they get routinely dumped and replaced by new molecules brought in from outside sources.

Henry

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2009,22:29   

Quote (Henry J @ April 13 2009,21:59)
 
Quote
if man is more than molecules, you should be able to demonstrate that.


Oh, it's also the arrangement of those molecules. Actually, the arrangement may be more important than the molecules themselves, especially considering that they get routinely dumped and replaced by new molecules brought in from outside sources.

Henry

the best part is that denial's challenge, using a definition of "satisfactory level of detail in understanding the full pathway of every mechanism and process" or some other crap, means that he is placing the bar at the very lowest fundamental reduced level of matter.  that precludes even relations between those entities except as they are a function of the properties of individual entities.*

otherwise you get to play that good old creationist game

"well where did that come from".  "Oh yeah well where did that come from"

that we are watching at UD everytime StephenB plays with himself over there.  all the way back to "get your own dirt" and god the necessary being, your god prays to my god, eternal regress.

so daniel says we don't really know something**, say, the biological mechanisms responsible, in a complete level of detail, for the evolution of any damn thing and never will.  and he will always be able to say that until biology is both theoretically and explanatorily reduced to the interacting of individual fundamental units.

of course i have attributed much to my little straw daniel here, but i have not soaked it much in the oil of ad hominem this time.  implicitly.  

the latching of the black box oh hell i can't keep that up.

that's why its a wanking exercise.  

 
Quote
you can't scientifically prove what can't be scientifically proven


over and over

*i think that is right.  otherwise, if there are different kinds of fundamental units, then adding the requirement of a full historical account of every particle would be some sort of nominalism that would preclude any generalizations at this level.

**i think if you could get daniel to reply honestly, or alternatively Im sure digging through the archives here it would be possible to reconstruct in his own words, either way the final deductive step in the way he has outlined his argument here is "Thus, knowledge of any sort is not possible".

Enter some plantignian fluffed impotent caveat "save the will of an eternal being who necessarily manifests the qualities of the god of the bible but is not defined by that bible" and he can play parasite games of empirical equivalence.

like a welfare cheat or something.  it's a reason scam, but in this case it doesn't seem worth stealing

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2009,23:11   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 13 2009,18:36)
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 12 2009,03:22)
     
Quote (Quack @ April 12 2009,04:16)
Why is Daniel here, what’s his goal, what’s the purpose? He might as well attempt converting us to solipsism.

"Denialism" is such an apt term for his particular solipsistic navel-gazing.

This oozed forth many times in his posts, particularly when, on one hand, he claims scientists are to judge on matters scientific, EXCEPT -- on the other hand -- when it conflicts with the Prophet Denial.

Strawman.

Really, Denial? Let's have a look via the Wayback Machine of simply re-reading this thread --- Strawman, you say?

The relevant bits of your posts are in red, Denial.

   
Quote
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 15 2009,13:28)
I said that the test is "to provide a road map (one that passes the test of peer review)".  I've said repeatedly that any proposed pathway - in order to meet my challenge - must be able to convince the actual scientists most familiar with the matter.  These are the people who will tear it apart and expose its weaknesses - not me.


   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 15 2009,14:04)
 I am attempting to narrow down my general (untestable) prediction to specific (testable) predictions. My specific prediction (implied by the general prediction) is that, right now, at this moment, if you attempt to reconstruct an evolutionary pathway--that leads from the time when amino acids were not synthesized within the organism to the present E. coli synthesis biopathway--your attempt will fail to convince the scientific community.

... it IS a prediction.  It CAN be tested.  It CAN be proven wrong at any time.

Now, it's easy to predict that you personally won't be able to do it - it's another thing altogether to predict that the best scientist currently working on the problem (whoever that may be), will also fail on every attempt.  That too is implied by my prediction however...

   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 16 2009,12:57)
You're babbling, Daniel.

I provided you with papers that passed peer-review muster and are "generally accepted" by the relevant scientific community.

Those papers were *precisely* about the evolution of an aminosynthesis pathway in E. coli -- exactly what you asked for

I asked you to read those papers long ago. Have you? This was weeks ago, Daniel.

The fact is this ; the "scientific community " is not judging them here, Daniel...YOU were. That's why people were taking YOU up on your shifting "challenges."

And sure, you're "content" in pretending to be right...it is ALWAYS possible to use an infinite regress and ask "oh, well, then where did THAT come from?" when presented with data

And that's all you do -- you rely on that simple tactic each and every time, Daniel

It's possible to apply that tactic of "where did *that* come from?" to any system and then pretend that you've accomplished some great feat when eventually the respondent must answer "we don't know at this time" ...but it's not a great feat.

It's simply funny that you think it's accomplishing anything at all. And I mean "funny" in a tragicomic sort of way.


Now see what you write here:      
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 17 2009,17:44)
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 17 2009,09:45)
           
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 04 2009,18:35)
                 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Feb. 03 2009,17:07)
But, since you HAVE read the papers, I'd like you to talk to me about why the common pathway of e. Coli aminosynthesis involves ASDH in three separate metabolic routes?

I'm guessing whole genome duplication (twice) produced the three pathways which later differentiated into three separate routes.

Am I close?

(I cheated a bit - I read the abstracts)

I've just printed out the two papers you linked to and I'll get back to you when I'm done with them.

And finally,above, your claim that you'd read them and get back to the topic (which was a month or more ago). Now, of COURSE I know exactly what your next move is, Denial...you will not accept that these papers represent widespread scientific acceptance of an evolutionary pathway for aminosynthesis between differing species -- even though you just posted that such criteria were in fact the only thing that counts.

No, no! ---  What you'll now say is that it doesn't satisfy Denial Smith and that you are "really" the arbiter of what is acceptable levels of "pathetic detail."

You'll just say "Yeah, well, where did THAT come from" and pretend that you've "won" something -- even as you admit that you can't even make first steps towards a body of evidence concerning any of your mythic, mystical creation stories.

It's not that I really give a shit about what YOU personally think, DannyGoy, I just stop in from time to time to poke at the Denial Pinata and see what tard drops out.

Apparently deadman, your definition of "pathway" is different from mine.  My definition involves laying out the intermediate steps.  Yours seems to only deal with the beginning and the end, IOW, as long as we have a possible beginning, and a known end, you seem to think we have a "pathway" between them.

Until we're on the same page on that issue, we're just going to argue in circles.

I'll agree that the scientific community has lots of "pathways" that meet your definition.  They have none (to my knowledge) that meet mine.


Notice that on one hand you have said that the arbiters of what is scientifically acceptable is the scientific community best-informed on the subject matter...

BUT  when I give you specific agreed-upon detail for an animosynthesis pathway in e. Coli -- you suddenly say that YOU are the arbiter of what is accepted or acceptable.

It is no strawman ,  Denial ; you say mutually contradictory things when it suits you,  which is frequently since you're pretty much just an ____ (insert insult of choice)


--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 13 2009,23:15   

I followed the above material up with this little post: read it carefully,Denial --

       
Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 19 2009,20:22)
         
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,18:50)
               
Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 17 2009,16:52)
   
Answer me honestly; have you even bothered, in this last month and more,  to read ( and I mean READ with comprehension, not "look at") the MULTIPLE papers I pointed to, Daniel?


I did deadman, but after you bailed on the discussion for awhile I had forgotten about them.  I've had time to refresh my memory a bit and I can give you my impressions (for what it's worth).

No. That's false, Daniel. I didn't "bail" on shit, liar-boy. See, you were supposed to read the papers and "get back" to me, remember? You wrote that, Daniel. Do I need to repost your own words?
         
Quote
Denial Smith wrote:

"I've just printed out the two papers you linked to and I'll get back to you when I'm done with them."


You failed to do that, Denial. If anyone "bailed"  -- it was you.



             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,18:50)
One of my responses indicated that I thought they would hypothesize two or more whole genome duplications.  The reason I thought this was because I knew that it would require a lot of individual gene duplications to achieve the number of changes they hypothesize.  I was surprised to find that they did go with gene duplications after all.  I'm not sure how likely it is for so many genes to get duplicated and eventually code for proteins that work their way into new roles in critical pathways, but it is a hypothetical pathway.


Again, another falsehood, Denial. You didn't "guess" shit --  You stated clearly that you'd read article abstracts that mentioned duplication, didn't you? Do you need to refresh your memory on what you've already written...again?

             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,18:50)
It's just a matter of wait and see now.  I have faith that there are good scientists out there who will scrutinize this pathway for all of its strengths and weaknesses.  

If it stands up, I'm wrong.  Simple as that.

I'm hoping you're not naive enough to believe this hypothetical pathway is settled science though.


AH, so you're relying on yet another "eternal regress" -- that's so cute.

You won't accept (despite there being literally dozens of papers on this topic ) that there is relative consensus on this evolutionary pathway ; regardless of how many people accept it you won't accept it.

But you said it was the scientific community that counted, yet you're switching back and forth faster than a pulsar.

Everything in science is tentative, Daniel. There are no immutable truths in science, period. That means that anything can be wrong...but to withold provisional acceptance of a pathway as scientifically agreed-upon at this time would require a perverse torturing of basic logic...yet there you are, Denial, perverse and lying, per usual.

At the very beginning of this little charade of yours, you specifically asked for an accepted evolutionary pathway for aminosynthesis, in E. coli. You flipped around the goalposts a few times and now you're still doing that...

The only difference is that now you've been given data (and there's a lot more where that came from) ...that indicates a valid evolutionary pathway for just what you asked for initially, and so now you're retreating back into your own personal god of the gaps barrier...you won't agree that the pathway is accepted, even if you haven't shown any competition for that theoretical pathway.


You won't do so ...only because you'll never accept that it meets your challenge.

It has nothing at all to do with the scientific community judging it, Denial Smith : it has only to do with  a little duplicitous Denial.


--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2009,00:19   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 14 2009,02:19)
Quote (rhmc @ April 11 2009,18:28)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 11 2009,20:40)
Every single person who espouses ID, has already accepted the possibility of an entity capable of producing life on this planet.  We who have done so, can infer means, motives and causal histories for that designer - you cannot.

so why are you afraid of the questions you've been asked?

where is your evidence?

Which questions are you talking about?

If it's questions about "teh flud" or child molestation, I think your answer is self-evident.

Why are you here again Daniel?

Put your money where your mouth is.

Provide scientific evidence to support your case for god of the bible.

You know yourself it doesn't exist.

No amount of whining will fix that.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2009,03:20   

Quote
And I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around your apparent belief that the scientific method is the only means to discovery.

You can show examples of discovery by the other method?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2009,04:46   

Quote (Quack @ April 14 2009,11:20)
Quote
And I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around your apparent belief that the scientific method is the only means to discovery.

You can show examples of discovery by the other method?

It's called dreaming and Daniel thinks it's real.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 14 2009,06:57   

THAT IS SO A GIRAFFE, HOMO.  YOU ARE RETREATING TO EMPIRICAL SCIENCE TO SAY ITS A CLOUD.  NOW GET OFF MY GIRAFFE

--------------
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: April 15 2009,15:27   

Bit slow in here.

But wait.

What's that on the horizon?

Could it be?

A large body of water moving at considerable speed?

Where could it have come from?

Where is it going?

Will Daniel Smith wave to us as he flies past, looking down?

   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Jan. 09 2008,18:24)
the landscape looks like the aftermath of massive flood runoff when viewed from the air.  



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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2009,19:37   

Quote (deadman_932 @ April 13 2009,21:15)
I followed the above material up with this little post: read it carefully,Denial --  
Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 19 2009,18:22)
[snip - see below]

Welcome back deadman!
I thought you had bailed for sure when I read this:        
Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 19 2009,18:42)
By the way, Denial, don't even bother responding to me, seriously. You've seen fit to put others on "ignore," so eat a big helpin' of that yourself, fucknut.

You're a waste of time. Anyone as willing as you are to use any unethical method of weaseling/lying ....well, you're not worth my time.

Don't play martyr either, liar-boy...see, I actually DO have respect for some flavors of theism...just not the blatantly mendacious sort that you espouse.

You're just an exemplar of how easy it is for humans to bullshit themselves based on culturally-derived fantasies.


Now that you have decided to re-engage, perhaps you'd like to respond to my last post (which was an answer to your quoted response):        
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 21 2009,06:47)
       
Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 19 2009,18:22)
           
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,18:50)
                 
Quote (deadman_932 @ Mar. 17 2009,16:52)
   
Answer me honestly; have you even bothered, in this last month and more,  to read ( and I mean READ with comprehension, not "look at") the MULTIPLE papers I pointed to, Daniel?


I did deadman, but after you bailed on the discussion for awhile I had forgotten about them.  I've had time to refresh my memory a bit and I can give you my impressions (for what it's worth).

No. That's false, Daniel. I didn't "bail" on shit, liar-boy. See, you were supposed to read the papers and "get back" to me, remember? You wrote that, Daniel. Do I need to repost your own words?
           
Quote
Denial Smith wrote:

"I've just printed out the two papers you linked to and I'll get back to you when I'm done with them."


You failed to do that, Denial. If anyone "bailed"  -- it was you.



               
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,18:50)
One of my responses indicated that I thought they would hypothesize two or more whole genome duplications.  The reason I thought this was because I knew that it would require a lot of individual gene duplications to achieve the number of changes they hypothesize.  I was surprised to find that they did go with gene duplications after all.  I'm not sure how likely it is for so many genes to get duplicated and eventually code for proteins that work their way into new roles in critical pathways, but it is a hypothetical pathway.


Again, another falsehood, Denial. You didn't "guess" shit --  You stated clearly that you'd read article abstracts that mentioned duplication, didn't you? Do you need to refresh your memory on what you've already written...again?

               
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 19 2009,18:50)
It's just a matter of wait and see now.  I have faith that there are good scientists out there who will scrutinize this pathway for all of its strengths and weaknesses.  

If it stands up, I'm wrong.  Simple as that.

I'm hoping you're not naive enough to believe this hypothetical pathway is settled science though.


AH, so you're relying on yet another "eternal regress" -- that's so cute.

You won't accept (despite there being literally dozens of papers on this topic ) that there is relative consensus on this evolutionary pathway ; regardless of how many people accept it you won't accept it.

But you said it was the scientific community that counted, yet you're switching back and forth faster than a pulsar.

Everything in science is tentative, Daniel. There are no immutable truths in science, period. That means that anything can be wrong...but to withold provisional acceptance of a pathway as scientifically agreed-upon at this time would require a perverse torturing of basic logic...yet there you are, Denial, perverse and lying, per usual.

At the very beginning of this little charade of yours, you specifically asked for an accepted evolutionary pathway for aminosynthesis, in E. coli. You flipped around the goalposts a few times and now you're still doing that...

The only difference is that now you've been given data (and there's a lot more where that came from) ...that indicates a valid evolutionary pathway for just what you asked for initially, and so now you're retreating back into your own personal god of the gaps barrier...you won't agree that the pathway is accepted, even if you haven't shown any competition for that theoretical pathway.

You won't do so ...only because you'll never accept that it meets your challenge.  

It has nothing at all to do with the scientific community judging it, Denial Smith : it has only to do with  a little duplicitous Denial.

My argument has always been that such pathways will be found to be unworkable when looked at closely.  Calling that an "infinite regress" or "moving the goalposts" is a dishonest attempt to negate the crux of my argument.


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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2009,20:27   

Quote
My argument has always been that such pathways will be found to be unworkable when looked at closely.  Calling that an "infinite regress" or "moving the goalposts" is a dishonest attempt to negate the crux of my argument.



Shrug, says you.

So far Daniel you have acted with malice on every single topic you have chosen and lost.

Find some kids to fiddle.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2009,20:36   

I'll accept your apology, Denial, because you've clearly realized the error of your ways.
1.) You wanted an aminosynthesis pathway, and that was given.
2.) You acknowledge that said pathway is accepted by the relevant scientific community.
3.) You concede that you can't come up with a competing valid scientific theory for that pathway, so it's the default view -- beyond merely being accepted by the relevant scientific community.

I'm glad that you now see that no amount of shifting the goalposts or claiming that you are suddenly the arbiter of facts will do -- since you have conceded the points above.

I accept your apology.

It's not your fault you were so easy to make fun of, given your lack of mental acuity or knowledge. Your blatant dishonesty which I pointed to in my last post...is forgiven.

Go forth and sin no more, my son. Apology accepted.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 17 2009,21:31   

Quote (rhmc @ April 13 2009,20:02)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 13 2009,19:19)
Quote (rhmc @ April 11 2009,18:28)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 11 2009,20:40)
Every single person who espouses ID, has already accepted the possibility of an entity capable of producing life on this planet.  We who have done so, can infer means, motives and causal histories for that designer - you cannot.

so why are you afraid of the questions you've been asked?

where is your evidence?

Which questions are you talking about?

If it's questions about "teh flud" or child molestation, I think your answer is self-evident.

the flood would be a question that you've continued to dodge.  

you've been asked many others as well that you have refused to answer.

why?

why are you not attempting to answer the questions?

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2009,02:22   

Quote
My argument has always been that such pathways will be found to be unworkable when looked at closely.  Calling that an "infinite regress" or "moving the goalposts" is a dishonest attempt to negate the crux of my argument.

Looks like an argument about the future to me. Now, isn't it a fact that (leaving aside the dubious Biblical predictions) predictions about the future are among the most difficult predictions that can be made?

Don't you think it would be prudent to direct your effort towards predictions about the present, and even more rewarding, the past?

Like that flood you know. Seems we are quite a crowd here queeing for a first view. Be a good sport, don't keep us waiting much longer. It seems to me that if that matter could find a satisfactory solution, many other issues might be laid to rest too.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 18 2009,04:26   

A few words about demons, witches, devils etc wouldn't go astray either Daniel.

Don't be shy we've heard some real doozies from you're mob before.

In fact I haven't met a creationist yet who can't wait to get that out.

What about "teh afterlife" ?

I get a kick out of those stories as well.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2009,13:04   

Quote (Quack @ April 14 2009,01:20)
 
Quote
And I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around your apparent belief that the scientific method is the only means to discovery.

You can show examples of discovery by the other method?

Sure.

How about the method you used to determine that a detailed face on Mars "has to be" designed?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2009,13:10   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 19 2009,13:04)
How about the method you used to determine that a detailed face on Mars "has to be" designed?

After you!
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Mar. 30 2009,13:40)
When we look at life, design is instantly recognizable.  When we look at DNA, we see genetic programming.  When we look at a flagellum, we see a God-designed motor.  Chloroplasts are God's photovoltaic cells.  Enzymes and all the other proteins are individually designed machinery - made to carry out specific functions.

How about the method you used to determine that a chloroplast "has to be" designed?

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2009,13:54   

Quote (deadman_932 @ April 17 2009,18:36)
I'll accept your apology, Denial, because you've clearly realized the error of your ways.
1.) You wanted an aminosynthesis pathway, and that was given.
2.) You acknowledge that said pathway is accepted by the relevant scientific community.
3.) You concede that you can't come up with a competing valid scientific theory for that pathway, so it's the default view -- beyond merely being accepted by the relevant scientific community.

I'm glad that you now see that no amount of shifting the goalposts or claiming that you are suddenly the arbiter of facts will do -- since you have conceded the points above.

I accept your apology.

It's not your fault you were so easy to make fun of, given your lack of mental acuity or knowledge. Your blatant dishonesty which I pointed to in my last post...is forgiven.

Go forth and sin no more, my son. Apology accepted.

I think we need to define terms here.

"Detailed pathway" - as I have defined it - is a realistic, workable route for which all the steps have been defined and verified to be within a realistic, workable distance from each other.  IOW, it is settled science.  No matter how closely we inspect it, it always comes up verified in every detail - there is no more need for debate - everything has been verified.  

A "pathway" by any other definition is irrelevant to my argument.

I didn't read anything in any of those papers you cited that said that the scientific community had "settled" on that pathway as the final answer to the question (are you saying there are no dissenting opinions?).  What I saw was that certain proteins had similar coding to others which led to the preliminary hypothesis that multiple gene duplications might have been involved in the evolution of the current pathway.  While science may have settled on the preliminary hypothesis (I also didn't see any indication that even that was "settled"), they are no where near filling in the blanks for the complete evolutionary pathway.  Many, many questions remain unanswered.

Now, before you accuse me of "moving the goalposts", let me point out that that has always been my position.  I, at one time and to advance the discussion, asked for even a preliminary pathway.  You responded with the aminosynthesis pathway.  I then asked for more detail (in order to prove my point).  You responded by accusing me of moving the goalposts - a strawman you have relentlessly repeated ever since.  

But go back and read my Argument from Impossibility and you will see that I have not moved the goalposts one inch:          
Quote
I propose that the ultimate origins of life on this planet will forever be impossible to fully explain. I propose that this impossibility is a consequence of the infinite intelligence of the creator of life: if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means. We may be able to hazard a guess, or propose a natural pathway, but upon closer inspection, such explanations will always be found to be unrealistic, unworkable or both.
...
So the challenge is to explain how the current amino acid synthesis system in E. coli originated via natural mechanisms. How did each of the twenty specific enzymes come to be? How did each of the twenty steps in the biochemical pathway come together in the correct order to form these essential amino acids? What was the immediate precursor to the current system? What were all the intermediate steps? Remember that this explanation must account for each enzyme and each step. Also, each enzyme is regulated. That means that enzymes are only produced as needed. If enzymes were unregulated you could either have too many of them, causing a chemical imbalance or even cell rupture, or too few, which would halt amino acid synthesis. The pathway itself is also regulated. Certain substances act as chemical switches; activating or deactivating enzymes within the pathway. This ensures that the correct amount of amino acids are produced. How did this regulation come about? To further complicate matters let me add here that enzymes are proteins, and proteins are made from (you guessed it) amino acids! So enzymes are required to make amino acids and amino acids are required to make enzymes. A divine catch-22!

I predict then that no one will be able to answer this challenge with any detail...


--------------
"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: April 19 2009,13:58   

Quote (Quack @ April 18 2009,00:22)
 
Quote
My argument has always been that such pathways will be found to be unworkable when looked at closely.  Calling that an "infinite regress" or "moving the goalposts" is a dishonest attempt to negate the crux of my argument.

Looks like an argument about the future to me. Now, isn't it a fact that (leaving aside the dubious Biblical predictions) predictions about the future are among the most difficult predictions that can be made?

Don't you think it would be prudent to direct your effort towards predictions about the present, and even more rewarding, the past?

Like that flood you know. Seems we are quite a crowd here queeing for a first view. Be a good sport, don't keep us waiting much longer. It seems to me that if that matter could find a satisfactory solution, many other issues might be laid to rest too.

Why are you all so intent on changing the subject?

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2009,14:04   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 19 2009,13:54)
IOW, it is settled science.  No matter how closely we inspect it, it always comes up verified in every detail - there is no more need for debate - everything has been verified.

Sorry, Denial

A situation like that is only found when the science is dead. See "phlogiston" or "creationism" or "cold fusion" in any good history of science book for the details. Real science will always be examining and learning new details.

Go away and bother somebody else with your demands for perfection.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2009,14:04   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 19 2009,13:04)
Quote (Quack @ April 14 2009,01:20)
   
Quote
And I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around your apparent belief that the scientific method is the only means to discovery.

You can show examples of discovery by the other method?

Sure.

How about the method you used to determine that a detailed face on Mars "has to be" designed?

RB is just granting you your little silly ontological bauble to point out how stupid it is.

the fact that you don't see that is entertaining as hell.

now prove you aren't a diddler

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2009,14:28   

Oh my! I feel like a little cheerleader at her first game. All wet and exited, yet nothing comes out.

Enough already. Daniel is pissed off by the fact that all his stories go down in flames. Present him with the widest amount of evidence, wraped in a nice package with ribbons, and yet he'll come back and bitch about the wrapper color.

Denial is my grand-uncle after two scotch at christmas!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2009,14:53   

It's the simplest of shell games:
1) Pretend reasonableness and ask for "even a preliminary pathway" for evolutionary novelty and pretend you'd accept it, if scientists agreed on it.

2) Once the pathway is given, drop the pretense and shift the goalposts by asking "where did that come from?" endlessly, in an infinite regress -- Eventually, an honest respondent *must* answer "we don't know at this time."

3)$$Profit!!$$

-- Do this while disregarding/ignoring the basic fact that nothing in science is ever claimed to BE a "final answer" -- EVER.

-- Oscillate back and forth from pretending that it is (a) up to scientists to determine the validity of a scientific claim, to (b) Posing your own opinion as the ultimate arbiter.

-- Pretend that asking for the origins of things in an infinite regress isn't moving the goalposts towards a God of the Gaps defense.

Did I miss any any other major aspect of your fraudulent approach, Denial?

Just as an exercise, Denial; can you name anything in science that is demonstrably claimed to be a "final answer?" If not...think about how this might affect your fake-ass approach. DON'T FAIL TO RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THIS REQUEST FOR AN EXAMPLE, DENIAL (Onlookers may wish to judge Denial's honesty thereby)

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2009,15:24   

Quote (deadman_932 @ April 19 2009,21:53)
It's the simplest of shell games:
1) Pretend reasonableness and ask for "even a preliminary pathway" for evolutionary novelty and pretend you'd accept it, if scientists agreed on it.

2) Once the pathway is given, drop the pretense and shift the goalposts by asking "where did that come from?" endlessly, in an infinite regress -- Eventually, an honest respondent *must* answer "we don't know at this time."

3)$$Profit!!$$

-- Do this while disregarding/ignoring the basic fact that nothing in science is ever claimed to BE a "final answer" -- EVER.

-- Oscillate back and forth from pretending that it is (a) up to scientists to determine the validity of a scientific claim, to (b) Posing your own opinion as the ultimate arbiter.

-- Pretend that asking for the origins of things in an infinite regress isn't moving the goalposts towards a God of the Gaps defense.

Did I miss any any other major aspect of your fraudulent approach, Denial?

Just as an exercise, Denial; can you name anything in science that is demonstrably claimed to be a "final answer?" If not...think about how this might affect your fake-ass approach. DON'T FAIL TO RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THIS REQUEST FOR AN EXAMPLE, DENIAL (Onlookers may wish to judge Denial's honesty thereby)

For emphazise!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 19 2009,21:23   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 19 2009,13:58)
Quote (Quack @ April 18 2009,00:22)
   
Quote
My argument has always been that such pathways will be found to be unworkable when looked at closely.  Calling that an "infinite regress" or "moving the goalposts" is a dishonest attempt to negate the crux of my argument.

Looks like an argument about the future to me. Now, isn't it a fact that (leaving aside the dubious Biblical predictions) predictions about the future are among the most difficult predictions that can be made?

Don't you think it would be prudent to direct your effort towards predictions about the present, and even more rewarding, the past?

Like that flood you know. Seems we are quite a crowd here queeing for a first view. Be a good sport, don't keep us waiting much longer. It seems to me that if that matter could find a satisfactory solution, many other issues might be laid to rest too.

Why are you all so intent on changing the subject?

bwaaaaaaaa

daniel you have made the subject infinite

Guy in lab coat  "Well see these here blagella what have yous fenestrate into the finklescale and fronking frectogel with aneurical hemoblats"

Daniall  "Unh huh.  whatever god dun that you didn't mention that in your full simulation so your explanation fails to me, because it is less parsimonious than "god dun it" or "methinks it is like a weasel"

guy in lab coat "security we have another one of them in here taking off his  clothes and writing on the walls with poop and pudding get the taser this time poor feller is quite agitated"

Banal Smith "you are retreating to your empirical science.  I win. I win I win.  Evilution disproven 4 evr!"

any random seed example loops back in on the recursive stopid

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

  
BWE



Posts: 1902
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2009,00:41   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 19 2009,11:54)
I think we need to define terms here.
I definitely agree with this assessment.

Quote

"Detailed pathway" - as I have defined it - is a realistic, workable route for which all the steps have been defined and verified to be within a realistic, workable distance from each other.  IOW, it is settled science.  No matter how closely we inspect it, it always comes up verified in every detail - there is no more need for debate - everything has been verified.  

A "pathway" by any other definition is irrelevant to my argument.
Did I predict you'd say that or was that afdave I predicted it about?

Quote

...
So the challenge is to explain how the current amino acid synthesis system in E. coli originated via natural mechanisms. How did each of the twenty specific enzymes come to be? How did each of the twenty steps in the biochemical pathway come together in the correct order to form these essential amino acids? What was the immediate precursor to the current system? What were all the intermediate steps? Remember that this explanation must account for each enzyme and each step. Also, each enzyme is regulated. That means that enzymes are only produced as needed. If enzymes were unregulated you could either have too many of them, causing a chemical imbalance or even cell rupture, or too few, which would halt amino acid synthesis. The pathway itself is also regulated. Certain substances act as chemical switches; activating or deactivating enzymes within the pathway. This ensures that the correct amount of amino acids are produced. How did this regulation come about? To further complicate matters let me add here that enzymes are proteins, and proteins are made from (you guessed it) amino acids! So enzymes are required to make amino acids and amino acids are required to make enzymes. A divine catch-22!

A tailored catch22 anyway. where's the smiley that says disingenuous?
Quote
I predict then that no one will be able to answer this challenge with any detail...


I predict you can't give me one single physical effect God makes on this universe.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2009,00:49   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 19 2009,12:54)
But go back and read my Argument from Impossibility and you will see that I have not moved the goalposts one inch:            
...So the challenge is to explain how the current amino acid synthesis system in E. coli originated via natural mechanisms. How did each of the twenty specific enzymes come to be?

Are they specific or selective, Danny Boy?
Quote
How did each of the twenty steps in the biochemical pathway come together in the correct order to form these essential amino acids? What was the immediate precursor to the current system? What were all the intermediate steps? Remember that this explanation must account for each enzyme and each step.</b>

Why? Are none of them homologous?
Quote
Also, each enzyme is regulated. That means that enzymes are only produced as needed.

No, you're lying. That's not even close to what "regulated" means.
Quote
If enzymes were unregulated you could either have too many of them, causing a chemical imbalance or even cell rupture, or too few, which would halt amino acid synthesis.

Yet most enzymes IN YOUR VERY OWN BODY aren't "only produced as needed." Why are you still alive and lying for Jesus?
Quote
The pathway itself is also regulated. Certain substances act as chemical switches; activating or deactivating enzymes within the pathway. This ensures that the correct amount of amino acids are produced.

Demonstrate that the correct amounts of amino acids are produced.
Quote
[b]How did this regulation come about?

Only in your mind.
Quote
...I predict then that no one will be able to answer this challenge with any detail...

I just did. It's gibberish supported by nothing but fantasy.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2009,05:01   

Quote
Why are you all so intent on changing the subject?

You have already made it clear that as far as you are concerned, evolution is a closed book. There is nothing more there, never will be. I presume you stand by your predictions?

What naturally follows then is a debate about matters that have at least a theoretical chance of being resolved.

And honestly, isn't the flood one of the subjects you'd love to prove; not just relying on 'seen from above it looks like...'?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2009,17:07   

LOLcats have been talking to Denial. They also despair:



Louis

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2009,18:31   

Quote (JAM @ April 19 2009,22:49)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 19 2009,12:54)
But go back and read my Argument from Impossibility and you will see that I have not moved the goalposts one inch:            
...So the challenge is to explain how the current amino acid synthesis system in E. coli originated via natural mechanisms. How did each of the twenty specific enzymes come to be?

Are they specific or selective, Danny Boy?
         
Quote
How did each of the twenty steps in the biochemical pathway come together in the correct order to form these essential amino acids? What was the immediate precursor to the current system? What were all the intermediate steps? Remember that this explanation must account for each enzyme and each step.</b>

Why? Are none of them homologous?
         
Quote
Also, each enzyme is regulated. That means that enzymes are only produced as needed.

No, you're lying. That's not even close to what "regulated" means.
         
Quote
If enzymes were unregulated you could either have too many of them, causing a chemical imbalance or even cell rupture, or too few, which would halt amino acid synthesis.

Yet most enzymes IN YOUR VERY OWN BODY aren't "only produced as needed." Why are you still alive and lying for Jesus?
         
Quote
The pathway itself is also regulated. Certain substances act as chemical switches; activating or deactivating enzymes within the pathway. This ensures that the correct amount of amino acids are produced.

Demonstrate that the correct amounts of amino acids are produced.
         
Quote
[b]How did this regulation come about?

Only in your mind.
         
Quote
...I predict then that no one will be able to answer this challenge with any detail...

I just did. It's gibberish supported by nothing but fantasy.

If an incorrect amount of amino acids or enzymes are produced the system either overloads or stops working.  But you don't really care about that do you JAM?

I'm going to go out on a limb here JAM and guess that you also have no idea how the e. coli aminosynthetic pathway evolved.

I think that, in spite of your nitpicking rhetoric, you are as clueless as anyone else when it comes to the actual pathway by which anything evolved.

I'm going to assume that your bluster is just something you use to mask that fact.

There are many, many things I could cite here in support of my position - things like photorespiration, paired enzymes, massive enzyme complexes such as pyruvate dehydrogenase with its crane-like "arms", intracellular and hormonal regulation, the relationship between protein structure and energy states, the magnitude of variables necessary to bring about the simplest of catalytic reactions successfully... (the list is endless really).  We'll never discover the end of the glory of God in nature.  In short, Life is just God showing off a bit.  

To be able to look at all of this and say "no God required" - without any inkling as to how such a thing could happen - is the ultimate insult to an all-powerful creator.

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

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2009,20:01   

I long ago became convinced that no explanation would be sufficiently detailed for Daniel. To disabuse me of this, Daniel, could you give an explanation for anything, on any topic you choose, that includes the level of detail you would consider adequate for evolution?

My prediction is that you will either ignore this request or give some reason for not providing an example explanation.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2009,20:37   

Quote (Richard Simons @ April 20 2009,20:01)
I long ago became convinced that no explanation would be sufficiently detailed for Daniel. To disabuse me of this, Daniel, could you give an explanation for anything, on any topic you choose, that includes the level of detail you would consider adequate for evolution?

My prediction is that you will either ignore this request or give some reason for not providing an example explanation.

Hear hear

banal is so far beyond petty detail you wouldn't believe it

pathetic the detail you fellows require and have in your theories and stuff

i'd like to lock banal in a room with dembski and let them tard it out exactly how much of this detail is necessary

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 20 2009,22:07   

Never mind asking for examples, just find out how pointing to unanswered questions is supposed to somehow undermine a hypothesis.

I would have thought that to show that something contradicts a hypothesis, one would have to address something that the hypothesis had already been used to address.

Somehow I don't see unanswered questions as being in that category.

Maybe that's just me? :p

Henry

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2009,02:18   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 20 2009,17:31)

If an incorrect amount of amino acids or enzymes are produced the system either overloads or stops working.

Sometimes, but that does absolutely nothing to support your lie that they "are only produced as needed," now, does it?
Quote
But you don't really care about that do you JAM?

I've devoted my life to studying biology, while you're determined to lie about it. How do you defend a religion that includes the commandment "Thou shall not bear false witness" by bearing false witness?
Quote
I'm going to go out on a limb here JAM and guess that you also have no idea how the e. coli aminosynthetic pathway evolved.

Why not go out on a real limb and BET, Liar for Jesus?
Quote
I think that, in spite of your nitpicking rhetoric, you are as clueless as anyone else when it comes to the actual pathway by which anything evolved.

How much will you bet? I predict that you have no faith at all. In fact, your lack of faith is what is driving you to lie like a rug.
Quote
I'm going to assume that your bluster is just something you use to mask that fact.

Don't just assume, let's bet.
Quote
There are many, many things I could cite here in support of my position - things like photorespiration, paired enzymes, massive enzyme complexes such as pyruvate dehydrogenase with its crane-like "arms", intracellular and hormonal regulation, the relationship between protein structure and energy states, the magnitude of variables necessary to bring about the simplest of catalytic reactions successfully... (the list is endless really).

Really, it isn't. You're just lying.
Quote
We'll never discover the end of the glory of God in nature.  In short, Life is just God showing off a bit.

Yet I study that glory, while you don't, while you pretend to understand it better than I do!
Quote
To be able to look at all of this and say "no God required" -

You know, Dan, honest people don't put things they imagine other people saying in quotes. You're a fundamentally dishonest and un-Christian person.
Quote
...without any inkling as to how such a thing could happen - is the ultimate insult to an all-powerful creator.

You're the one claiming to know so much by studying so little. How were they designed?

How about answering one simple question--were you lying when you claimed they were "specific," because in reality, they are merely selective?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2009,10:51   

I was musing the other day about something someone very wise (Reciprocating Bill) quoted to me a while ago "The map is not the territory" (or something like that) and a highly unprofound idea popped into my head. Dear old Denial is asking for a map that is so perfect in its detail that every particle of a newly discovered continent is accurately described. A map so accurate that (no pun unintended) the fall of every sparrow is observable on it. Otherwise he can claim that the continent doesn't exist and all is ocean.

This would be surprisingly illogical enough except that Denial claims to be able to provide a (spectacularly unforthcoming) map of his own showing just ocean, using supposedly the same cartography.

Hmmm I'm thinking that this Mulberry bush circling is amusing someone. I'm not sure who though.

Louis

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2009,11:03   

Quote (Louis @ April 21 2009,18:51)
I was musing the other day about something someone very wise (Reciprocating Bill) quoted to me a while ago "The map is not the territory" (or something like that) and a highly unprofound idea popped into my head. Dear old Denial is asking for a map that is so perfect in its detail that every particle of a newly discovered continent is accurately described. A map so accurate that (no pun unintended) the fall of every sparrow is observable on it. Otherwise he can claim that the continent doesn't exist and all is ocean.

This would be surprisingly illogical enough except that Denial claims to be able to provide a (spectacularly unforthcoming) map of his own showing just ocean, using supposedly the same cartography.

Hmmm I'm thinking that this Mulberry bush circling is amusing someone. I'm not sure who though.

Louis


From another Lewis who perfectly understood little girls

Quote

The Bellman himself they all praised to the skies--
Such a carriage, such ease and such grace!
Such solemnity, too! One could see he was wise,
The moment one looked in his face!
He had bought a large map representing the sea,
Without the least vestige of land:
And the crew were much pleased when they found it to be
A map they could all understand.

"What's the good of Mercator's North Poles and Equators,
Tropics, Zones, and Meridian Lines?"
So the Bellman would cry: and the crew would reply
"They are merely conventional signs!

"Other maps are such shapes, with their islands and capes!
But we've got our brave Captain to thank:
(So the crew would protest) "that he's bought us the best--
A perfect and absolute blank!"

This was charming, no doubt; but they shortly found out
That the Captain they trusted so well
Had only one notion for crossing the ocean,
And that was to islands and capes!
But we've got our brave Captain to thank:
(So the crew would protest) "that he's bought us the best--
A perfect and absolute blank!"

This was charming, no doubt; but they shortly found out
That the Captain they trusted so well
Had only one notion for crossing the ocean,
And that was to tingle his bell.


Daniel's Captain tingles his bell, his crew ....welllllllll?????

Shall we let our readers decide Daniel?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2009,11:09   

Quote
Hmmm I'm thinking that this Mulberry bush circling is amusing someone. I'm not sure who though.

Looks rather as if someone is about to lose his temper, though. Ultimate insults to an all-powerful creator must be painful to a sensitive mind.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2009,11:51   

DANIEL SAYS
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 19 2009,13:54)
  we need to define terms here.

"Detailed pathway" - as I have defined it - is a realistic, workable route for which all the steps have been defined and verified
to be within a realistic, workable distance from each other.  IOW, it is settled science.  No matter how closely we inspect it, it always comes up verified in every detail - there is no more need for debate - everything has been verified.  

A "pathway" by any other definition is irrelevant to my argument.

I predict then that no one will be able to answer this challenge with any detail...

     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 20 2009,18:31)
 the list is endless really.  We'll never discover the end of the glory of God in nature.  In short, Life is just God showing off a bit.  

To be able to look at all of this and say "no God required" - without any inkling as to how such a thing could happen - is the ultimate insult to an all-powerful creator.


OTHERS RESPOND

   
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 19 2009,14:53)
It's the simplest of shell games:
1) Pretend reasonableness and ask for "even a preliminary pathway" for evolutionary novelty and pretend you'd accept it, if scientists agreed on it.

2) Once the pathway is given, drop the pretense and shift the goalposts by asking "where did that come from?" endlessly, in an infinite regress -- Eventually, an honest respondent *must* answer "we don't know at this time."

3)$$Profit!!$$

-- Do this while disregarding/ignoring the basic fact that nothing in science is ever claimed to BE a "final answer" -- EVER.

-- Oscillate back and forth from pretending that it is (a) up to scientists to determine the validity of a scientific claim, to (b) Posing your own opinion as the ultimate arbiter.

-- Pretend that asking for the origins of things in an infinite regress isn't moving the goalposts towards a God of the Gaps defense.

Did I miss any any other major aspect of your fraudulent approach, Denial?

Just as an exercise, Denial; can you name anything in science that is demonstrably claimed to be a "final answer?" If not...think about how this might affect your fake-ass approach. DON'T FAIL TO RESPOND DIRECTLY TO THIS REQUEST FOR AN EXAMPLE, DENIAL (Onlookers may wish to judge Denial's honesty thereby)


   
Quote (Louis @ April 21 2009,10:51)

I was musing the other day about something someone very wise (Reciprocating Bill) quoted to me a while ago "The map is not the territory" (or something like that) and a highly unprofound idea popped into my head. Dear old Denial is asking for a map that is so perfect in its detail that every particle of a newly discovered continent is accurately described. A map so accurate that (no pun unintended) the fall of every sparrow is observable on it. Otherwise he can claim that the continent doesn't exist and all is ocean.

This would be surprisingly illogical enough except that Denial claims to be able to provide a (spectacularly unforthcoming) map of his own showing just ocean, using supposedly the same cartography.

Hmmm I'm thinking that this Mulberry bush circling is amusing someone. I'm not sure who though.

Louis


So...I asked you to point to anything in science that has the degree of detail you are requiring, Daniel. The kind of detail that allows scientists to say " This is settled, we know every jot and tittle about this subject so that we can say we have the FINAL ANSWER."

You didn't name a field of scientific investigation or ...well, anything in science in which we can make such a claim, Daniel. Now, put on your pointy little thinking cap and try to answer what you were asked.


Oh, and quit trying to talk for gods by saying what is and is not insulting to them, Daniel. You aren't privy to the thoughts of any gods -- no matter how much you may want to imagine yourself in that role

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2009,12:24   

I found this particularly ironic and amusing -- from months ago, at the beginning of this thread:
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:31)
  If you're going to quibble about minutia, forget it.  You know what I mean, you're just being petty.

Ever-increasing detail = "petty!"
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 14 2009,16:16)

Do you understand that asking for an atom-by-atom account for the change in the molecular pathways... is simply moving the goalposts?

Do you understand Zeno's Paradox, the misunderstanding of which  allows you to claim any event as a saltational event [i.e. "goddidit" ] no matter what sort of historical or biological processes were in play?  
I'm with Loose.  there is no point in attempting to hold your hand through this because you often give the impression of a petulant child, laying down in the floor and saying "No!"...   You have been misled.  When you claim conspiracies and godless blinders, everyone is going to tell you to Fuck Off.


Don't forget to answer my previous post [above], Denial!

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2009,14:33   

Quote (deadman_932 @ April 21 2009,19:24)
I found this particularly ironic and amusing -- from months ago, at the beginning of this thread:
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Feb. 13 2009,19:31)
  If you're going to quibble about minutia, forget it.  You know what I mean, you're just being petty.

Ever-increasing detail = "petty!"
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Feb. 14 2009,16:16)

Do you understand that asking for an atom-by-atom account for the change in the molecular pathways... is simply moving the goalposts?

Do you understand Zeno's Paradox, the misunderstanding of which  allows you to claim any event as a saltational event [i.e. "goddidit" ] no matter what sort of historical or biological processes were in play?  
I'm with Loose.  there is no point in attempting to hold your hand through this because you often give the impression of a petulant child, laying down in the floor and saying "No!"...   You have been misled.  When you claim conspiracies and godless blinders, everyone is going to tell you to Fuck Off.


Don't forget to answer my previous post [above], Denial!

Denial: Fuck Off!


Aaaaahhh. Much better...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2009,16:09   

Quote (deadman_932 @ April 21 2009,17:51)
[SNIP]

Oh, and quit trying to talk for gods by saying what is and is not insulting to them, Daniel. You aren't privy to the thoughts of any gods -- no matter how much you may want to imagine yourself in that role

{Reads back}

Oh I see Denial is yet another Self-Proclaimed Spokesman For God (TM Patent Pending). I do so love it when some religious fruitcake tells me what their god thinks. I'm always curious to find out how they know, and of course how what they know can be distinguished from a) any other religious claim and b) the pathological ramblings of my (now sadly committed) chum Emile who thinks he's Napoleon. Oh and of course, I'm always curious to find out if they can disprove my contention that it is impossible for them to demonstrate they are not a child molester (but I'm only curious about this when they make claims of a specific form).

Anyway, in reference to Interminable Mulberry Bush Circumnavigation (IMBC) I have to confess that, sufficiently tragically that I have a tear in my eye as I do so, I've yet to see anything to change my initial impression of Denial. Flattering him with any actual detail is a red herring, he hasn't got past the basics of philosophy yet. Actual science is way, way, WAY beyond his meagre ken.

Frankly, he's more than faintly pathetic.

Louis

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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2009,17:41   

Quote (Louis @ April 21 2009,16:09)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 21 2009,17:51)
[SNIP]

Oh, and quit trying to talk for gods by saying what is and is not insulting to them, Daniel. You aren't privy to the thoughts of any gods -- no matter how much you may want to imagine yourself in that role

{Reads back}

Oh I see Denial is yet another Self-Proclaimed Spokesman For God (TM Patent Pending). I do so love it when some religious fruitcake tells me what their god thinks. I'm always curious to find out how they know, and of course how what they know can be distinguished from a) any other religious claim and b) the pathological ramblings of my (now sadly committed) chum Emile who thinks he's Napoleon. Oh and of course, I'm always curious to find out if they can disprove my contention that it is impossible for them to demonstrate they are not a child molester (but I'm only curious about this when they make claims of a specific form).

But what about the thoughts of the youth who transports pizza to your home?  Surely he must have some especially valuable insights on the mind of god(s).

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2009,18:34   

Quote (JAM @ April 21 2009,00:18)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 20 2009,17:31)
To be able to look at all of this and say "no God required" -

You know, Dan, honest people don't put things they imagine other people saying in quotes.

What are you saying here JAM?  Are you saying that maybe you think that God is required?

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2009,18:39   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 22 2009,01:34)
Quote (JAM @ April 21 2009,00:18)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 20 2009,17:31)
To be able to look at all of this and say "no God required" -

You know, Dan, honest people don't put things they imagine other people saying in quotes.

What are you saying here JAM?  Are you saying that maybe you think that God is required?

Seriously, get lost. You are pathetic!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2009,18:48   

Quote (deadman_932 @ April 21 2009,09:51)
DANIEL SAYS
So...I asked you to point to anything in science that has the degree of detail you are requiring, Daniel. The kind of detail that allows scientists to say " This is settled, we know every jot and tittle about this subject so that we can say we have the FINAL ANSWER."

You didn't name a field of scientific investigation or ...well, anything in science in which we can make such a claim, Daniel. Now, put on your pointy little thinking cap and try to answer what you were asked.

There are lots of things actually that fit the bill, you just need to look outside of biology.  Many mathematical questions have been answered.  Chemistry and Physics also have lots of settled questions.  I'm sure you can think of some of these if you try.

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2009,18:54   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 22 2009,01:48)
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 21 2009,09:51)
DANIEL SAYS
So...I asked you to point to anything in science that has the degree of detail you are requiring, Daniel. The kind of detail that allows scientists to say " This is settled, we know every jot and tittle about this subject so that we can say we have the FINAL ANSWER."

You didn't name a field of scientific investigation or ...well, anything in science in which we can make such a claim, Daniel. Now, put on your pointy little thinking cap and try to answer what you were asked.

There are lots of things actually that fit the bill, you just need to look outside of biology.  Many mathematical questions have been answered.  Chemistry and Physics also have lots of settled questions.  I'm sure you can think of some of these if you try.

Got something for Pi? A complete answer?

So, what is the EXACT value of Pi?

ps: if your omniscient god created a universe where Pi is not an entire number, he fucked up big time!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2009,19:04   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 21 2009,18:48)
         
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 21 2009,09:51)
DANIEL SAYS
So...I asked you to point to anything in science that has the degree of detail you are requiring, Daniel. The kind of detail that allows scientists to say " This is settled, we know every jot and tittle about this subject so that we can say we have the FINAL ANSWER."

You didn't name a field of scientific investigation or ...well, anything in science in which we can make such a claim, Daniel. Now, put on your pointy little thinking cap and try to answer what you were asked.

There are lots of things actually that fit the bill, you just need to look outside of biology.  Many mathematical questions have been answered.  Chemistry and Physics also have lots of settled questions.  I'm sure you can think of some of these if you try.

Outside of math -- which works in its own axiomatic system, Denial -- Name me some of those "final answers" in chem and physics, please.

It's not up to me to name them, it was up to you, and you still haven't managed. This goes directly to your desire for "final answers" in science, Denial, so don't slough it off as though it's irrelevant to your claims/demands.

I've repeated this several (okay, more than five) times, Denial...in science, nothing can be claimed to be a "final answer" and it's due to a number of reasons, such as the Problem of Induction. I don't know of ANY recent philosopher of science that claims we now have or can attain absolute immutable "final answers" in science, Denial.

Allow me to quote Stephen Gould:        
Quote
The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world...

Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor).

" Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981


Back up your claims, Denial. Meet the challenges of those that have bothered to meet yours, despite the dishonesty and sheer laughable fraudulence of your methods. Do it, God-boy.

Here's another clue for you, God-boy:

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. - H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) .

This is related to a familiar concept in modern philosophy, Denial..."Can you show that you are not a brain in a vat?" The problem there is directly related to the notion of eternal immutable "truths' and "final answers." Can you comprehend why? Try reading the following...slowly, even if you have to move your lips:

 
Quote
The scientific method insists upon questioning not only the objects and events that we find in the world, but also our basic beliefs and assumptions about the way the world is, and the way we come to know things about it. Science works because no fact or belief is ever taken as being final; all knowledge is provisional, and postulates, methods, and conclusions are at all times open to the critical scrutiny not only of the researchers conducting the work, but also of the scientific community at large.

This is why science is so successful, and such an appealing method of rational inquiry: people are always asking questions, and never taking anything for granted... when people start getting complacent, when they claim that all the important problems are solved, or that the final word has been spoken about a particular phenomena, we should be wary.

Scientific knowledge is never absolute. Rather, it represents the consensus of a critical and vigilant community of scholars. It is this idea of consensus which is often confused with Absolute Truth [or "final answers," to you, Denial] http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N6/king.06o.html



Don't forget to name those [conclusively detailed!!!] "final answers" in chem and physics, Denial -- so I can show you, using your own duplicitous methods, how they cannot be claimed to be "final answers," -- "Final answers" in science are figments of your fevered god-addled imagination, some serious category error, as well as a sprinkle of your usual fallacy-mongering.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 21 2009,20:09   

I've followed this thread for a while. Like Daniel, I'm not a scientist. Unlike him, I'm one of the delinquents who hang around this shabby corner tripping up grannies, so I may be accused of bias towards The Dark Side. Nevertheless, I'd like to derail Daniel from his scientific quest for a minute if he'd be so obliging. I'd like to ask Daniel about toast.

When the alarm dumps me from the bosom of my slumbers into the grim indifference of the day, I soften the blow with the wonder that is toast. I note that removing the toaster's plug from the wall tends to impede the production of toast. I have heard that the magic that restores toast production when I plug it back in is related, in some way that someone mentioned in school, to the magic that makes the news issue from the radio. Remember, I'm not a scientist, so I can't explain this from personal experience or even intuition. I suppose that option is still open, but it would take quite a bit of catching up on the books.

So help me here Daniel. Can I say that I know that your toaster, which has pretty much the same parts as mine and even comes from the same factory, works by means of the same magic as my radio? How do I know that yours doesn't have a toast fairy? For that matter, how can I be sure that mine doesn't? To eliminate the toast fairy hypothesis, do I have check the behaviour of every toaster in the world? And should I then check all the radios to make sure they run on the same stuff?

As a rational person, you'll tell me not to bother. Though you aren't a scientist, you know that this "electricity" thing is reasonably well understood. I can take it for granted - heck, I can even say I "know" - that toasters and radios need it. It might be conceivable that there are other ways of making them work, but the ones we're talking about, with the wires and aerials, all use it. All that stuff in the textbooks is not really relevant to us laymen. The important thing is that, consistent with its description, we can use electrical equipment when we plug it in.

But Daniel, while I know you are impeccably honest and would not lie to me about something so important as toast, how can I be sure you're right? Am I being unreasonable if I suggest you just mention the toast fairy hypothesis the next time you talk to someone about toasters? I have to note that the plug on your toaster has just 2 pins while mine has 3, and yours says something about 110 Volts while mine mentions 220. Doesn't this inconsistency prove the toast fairy hypothesis? Also, the news on your radio is distinctly different from that on mine.

So Daniel, I'm afraid we've reached an impasse. Unless you can give me a convincing explanation of all plug types used on toasters, and of the mystery of the missing 110 volts, and account for each different news programme on every radio everywhere, I have to conclude that you are unable to defend your electricity "theory".

It's tough, but that's what you have to do to overcome the objections of toast-fairyism.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,03:11   

A 100% settled question in chemistry*?

Oh Denial you tease you! Don't just airily wave your hand, tell us do. Just one example will suffice. I'll bet you can't actually provide even on that fulfils the criteria you demand of other areas of science.

Louis

*I am making a bet that Denial will rely on some hierarchical "everything else is just stamp collecting" physics fetishism. I'm betting this because Denial is pig shit ignorant of science.

P.S. Texas teach, yeah that pizza boy sure has some whacky religious ideas. Mind you, he *is* the Pope. Or so he says...

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,03:39   

Is it possible that Daniel is desperate? He desperately believes in an all-powerful creator, and unless I've got it wrong, that should guarantee him a seat in the celestial harp band.

So what more is there to do? "Go thee out and make all the world my disciples"? We have the churches and child indoctrination for that.

Daniel, the burden is not on your shoulders. Jesus took care of that, you sins, past, present and future are forgiven. It is never too late to repent.

Science does not have the answers you crave. You gotta live as best you can with your faith, doubts and uncertainty. Are you not satisfied with the answers you find in the Bible?

You have been asked this a number of times but I have yet to see an answer: What are you doing here, what is your purpose? If you know, please don't keep us in the dark any longer! But maybe you don't even know yourself? Got lost on the way?

Have you tried prayers?

Let's ask "What's the problem?" and take it from there.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,08:43   

Quote (Quack @ April 22 2009,04:39)
Is it possible that Daniel is desperate? He desperately believes in an all-powerful creator,

No. He desperately wants to believe in an all-powerful creator.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,10:31   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 21 2009,18:48)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 21 2009,09:51)
DANIEL SAYS
So...I asked you to point to anything in science that has the degree of detail you are requiring, Daniel. The kind of detail that allows scientists to say " This is settled, we know every jot and tittle about this subject so that we can say we have the FINAL ANSWER."

You didn't name a field of scientific investigation or ...well, anything in science in which we can make such a claim, Daniel. Now, put on your pointy little thinking cap and try to answer what you were asked.

There are lots of things actually that fit the bill, you just need to look outside of biology.  Many mathematical questions have been answered.  Chemistry and Physics also have lots of settled questions.  I'm sure you can think of some of these if you try.

Daniel will never, ever, provide us with a specific answer. He knows that anything he said would be instantly torn apart.

I am curious about what is going on in Daniel's mind. Is he aware that the evidence he demands for evolution is so enormously different from the evidence he accepts for his religious beliefs? Does he have a block in his mind that does not allow him to examine his religious beliefs? It is my understanding that a person can be hypnotised into, say, always avoiding a certain patch of floor in the middle of a room and when asked will be able to provide justification for their actions. Does something similar go on in the minds of religious believers when they are asked to justify their faith? Has anyone made a comparison?

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,11:26   

Quote (Richard Simons @ April 22 2009,16:31)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 21 2009,18:48)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 21 2009,09:51)
DANIEL SAYS
So...I asked you to point to anything in science that has the degree of detail you are requiring, Daniel. The kind of detail that allows scientists to say " This is settled, we know every jot and tittle about this subject so that we can say we have the FINAL ANSWER."

You didn't name a field of scientific investigation or ...well, anything in science in which we can make such a claim, Daniel. Now, put on your pointy little thinking cap and try to answer what you were asked.

There are lots of things actually that fit the bill, you just need to look outside of biology.  Many mathematical questions have been answered.  Chemistry and Physics also have lots of settled questions.  I'm sure you can think of some of these if you try.

Daniel will never, ever, provide us with a specific answer. He knows that anything he said would be instantly torn apart.

I am curious about what is going on in Daniel's mind. Is he aware that the evidence he demands for evolution is so enormously different from the evidence he accepts for his religious beliefs? Does he have a block in his mind that does not allow him to examine his religious beliefs? It is my understanding that a person can be hypnotised into, say, always avoiding a certain patch of floor in the middle of a room and when asked will be able to provide justification for their actions. Does something similar go on in the minds of religious believers when they are asked to justify their faith? Has anyone made a comparison?

Reminds me a little of Morton's Demon.

Louis

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

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,11:29   

Quote (Richard Simons @ April 22 2009,10:31)
I am curious about what is going on in Daniel's mind. Is he aware that the evidence he demands for evolution is so enormously different from the evidence he accepts for his religious beliefs? Does he have a block in his mind that does not allow him to examine his religious beliefs? It is my understanding that a person can be hypnotised into, say, always avoiding a certain patch of floor in the middle of a room and when asked will be able to provide justification for their actions. Does something similar go on in the minds of religious believers when they are asked to justify their faith? Has anyone made a comparison?

Having asked a similar question to some fairly convinced religious types, I gather that the thinking is similar to the reason why you (hopefully) don't daydream about your children getting kidnapped or run over by a bus. Some things are just too awful to contemplate.

It's a pattern we all adopt. F'rinstance, we in the West live in a comfort zone that lets us ignore the effect on developing countries of trade policies designed to assure our standard of living. We occasionally rationalise away Bad Thoughts that pop up, or we pretend the problem isn't really there.

Creationists I have argued with are almost always not just poorly educated in science; they tend to be unaware of it and indifferent to it. So why should something you neither know nor care about have the right to disturb your faith-based world-construct?

The vast majority of fundies I have encountered don't actively go out looking for evolution to disinfect. They just want it to go away.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,12:23   

Quote (Amadan @ April 22 2009,17:29)
[SNIP]

It's a pattern we all adopt. F'rinstance, we in the West live in a comfort zone that lets us ignore the effect on developing countries of trade policies designed to assure our standard of living. We occasionally rationalise away Bad Thoughts that pop up, or we pretend the problem isn't really there.

[SNIP]

This isn't true of all of us, although I agree it is generally true.

The problem comes when we have to decide precisely what to DO about it. Do I as an individual come out in solidarity and sacrifice my standard of living in order to redress the balance (by which I mean an extreme sacrifice, not, for example, giving 25% of my salary to charity or something)? Do we petition from the inside of the luxurious West for change that can and will only ever come slowly? Do we rebel and smash the system? Do we try to alter the system in such a way as to sustainably bring people up to a good standard of living without too great a loss of living standard elsewhere?

Sorry, you've just hit on something I've been thinking a lot about lately.

Apologies for off topicerisation.

Louis

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,14:12   

Quote (deadman_932 @ April 21 2009,17:04)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 21 2009,18:48)
                 
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 21 2009,09:51)
DANIEL SAYS
So...I asked you to point to anything in science that has the degree of detail you are requiring, Daniel. The kind of detail that allows scientists to say " This is settled, we know every jot and tittle about this subject so that we can say we have the FINAL ANSWER."

You didn't name a field of scientific investigation or ...well, anything in science in which we can make such a claim, Daniel. Now, put on your pointy little thinking cap and try to answer what you were asked.

There are lots of things actually that fit the bill, you just need to look outside of biology.  Many mathematical questions have been answered.  Chemistry and Physics also have lots of settled questions.  I'm sure you can think of some of these if you try.

Outside of math -- which works in its own axiomatic system, Denial -- Name me some of those "final answers" in chem and physics, please.

It's not up to me to name them, it was up to you, and you still haven't managed. This goes directly to your desire for "final answers" in science, Denial, so don't slough it off as though it's irrelevant to your claims/demands.

I've repeated this several (okay, more than five) times, Denial...in science, nothing can be claimed to be a "final answer" and it's due to a number of reasons, such as the Problem of Induction. I don't know of ANY recent philosopher of science that claims we now have or can attain absolute immutable "final answers" in science, Denial.

Allow me to quote Stephen Gould:                
Quote
The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world...

Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor).

" Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981


Back up your claims, Denial. Meet the challenges of those that have bothered to meet yours, despite the dishonesty and sheer laughable fraudulence of your methods. Do it, God-boy.

Here's another clue for you, God-boy:

The honest scientist, like the philosopher, will tell you that nothing whatever can be or has been proved with fully 100% certainty, not even that you or I exist, nor anyone except himself, since he might be dreaming the whole thing. - H. J. Muller, "One Hundred Years Without Darwin Are Enough" School Science and Mathematics 59, 304-305. (1959) .

This is related to a familiar concept in modern philosophy, Denial..."Can you show that you are not a brain in a vat?" The problem there is directly related to the notion of eternal immutable "truths' and "final answers." Can you comprehend why? Try reading the following...slowly, even if you have to move your lips:

           
Quote
The scientific method insists upon questioning not only the objects and events that we find in the world, but also our basic beliefs and assumptions about the way the world is, and the way we come to know things about it. Science works because no fact or belief is ever taken as being final; all knowledge is provisional, and postulates, methods, and conclusions are at all times open to the critical scrutiny not only of the researchers conducting the work, but also of the scientific community at large.

This is why science is so successful, and such an appealing method of rational inquiry: people are always asking questions, and never taking anything for granted... when people start getting complacent, when they claim that all the important problems are solved, or that the final word has been spoken about a particular phenomena, we should be wary.

Scientific knowledge is never absolute. Rather, it represents the consensus of a critical and vigilant community of scholars. It is this idea of consensus which is often confused with Absolute Truth [or "final answers," to you, Denial] http://tech.mit.edu/V113/N6/king.06o.html



Don't forget to name those [conclusively detailed!!!] "final answers" in chem and physics, Denial -- so I can show you, using your own duplicitous methods, how they cannot be claimed to be "final answers," -- "Final answers" in science are figments of your fevered god-addled imagination, some serious category error, as well as a sprinkle of your usual fallacy-mongering.


According to this paper, there are several databases of known chemical reactions that scientists use to plan the synthesis of new drugs.

I'm going to assume they call them "known" because they are just that.

Many biochemical reactions are known as well - in fact they descibe them with equations (how can they do that if they are not known?).  

These things are known because they are experimentally verified.

Are there any known evolutionary pathways?

Speaking of settled science and final answers...

You've all made comments regarding the age of the Earth and the flood which led me to believe that "settled science" had excluded a 10,000 year old Earth and a global flood.  Is that not settled science?

How about phlogiston, the flat Earth and the geocentric universe?  Have we reached a final answer on those yet?

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

  
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,14:46   

God, who cares.  It's all word games to Denial.  He doesn't give a flying fuck about science, and nobody here thinks he does.  Like all such dishonest stealth religious apologetics (and that's all he offers, 100%), the actual useful content of his epistemology is zero--by design.  He's just trying to distract himself and others from reality and prop up his doomed superstitions for one more day, week, or year.

He's like AFDave lite, just not as smart and less energetic.  At least AFD showed us a depth and breadth of applied intentional ignorance that you just don't see every day.  Denial's just another regular guy, with nothing much to say, who can't shut up because he's AFUOJ.*

*All fucked up on Jesus

Edited because they put an edit button up there

--------------
"Molecular stuff seems to me not to be biology as much as it is a more atomic element of life" --Creo nut Robert Byers
------
"You need your arrogant ass kicked, and I would LOVE to be the guy who does it. Where do you live?" --Anger Management Problem Concern Troll "Kris"

  
Lowell



Posts: 101
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,14:49   

That's some serious sophistry there.

Daniel managed to weasel his way from "final answers" (the topic of discussion) to "known chemical reactions" to "settled science" as if no one would notice that these are different things.

Really weak, Daniel. Couldn't you talk more about teh flud or something similarly ridiculous? At least that's kind of funny.

--------------
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well documented events of antiquity. Barry Arrington, Jan 17, 2012.

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,15:28   

or toast?

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,15:34   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 22 2009,14:12)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 21 2009,17:04)
       

Don't forget to name those [conclusively detailed!!!] "final answers" in chem and physics, Denial -- so I can show you, using your own duplicitous methods, how they cannot be claimed to be "final answers," -- "Final answers" in science are figments of your fevered god-addled imagination, some serious category error, as well as a sprinkle of your usual fallacy-mongering.


According to this paper, there are several databases of known chemical reactions that scientists use to plan the synthesis of new drugs.

I'm going to assume they call them "known" because they are just that.

Many biochemical reactions are known as well - in fact they descibe them with equations (how can they do that if they are not known?).  

These things are known because they are experimentally verified.

Are there any known evolutionary pathways?

Speaking of settled science and final answers...

You've all made comments regarding the age of the Earth and the flood which led me to believe that "settled science" had excluded a 10,000 year old Earth and a global flood.  Is that not settled science?

How about phlogiston, the flat Earth and the geocentric universe?  Have we reached a final answer on those yet?

So you're not going to pick one of those and show me how it's a "final answer" Daniel? Because that's what I asked you to do, several times now. THat's what you've been asking others to do for YOU, Denial, but now you get all coy and virginally shy? Well, I'm here to ream your exits, Denial -- so show me WHICH of the list you mentioned are claimed BY YOU TO DEMONSTRABLY BE A FINAL ANSWER, AND SHOW ME HOW YOU KNOW THAT

Just for example, if I use your approach and examine hypothetical "final answers" in chemical reactions by subjecting them to increasing details ( you called this approach "looking more closely" or "examining in detail" )...

Do you think we might find that there are things about said reactions that we don't know about? See, that's what Daniel did. I can do that with anything that you care to name, Denial. Anything, even your claim of knowing about god, or the computer that you use to post your inane blather. We don't know a "final answer" about how your computer works, so using Denial's logic -- we can't claim to know it works. You can't claim to "know" at all even a single scientific "final answer" to how your computer works, Denial...not ONE single final answer.

Does that remind you of what you claimed about science not knowing a final answer on one single biological pathway if you subject it to ever-increasing detailed scrutiny, Denial? Why, yes, it does!! Why??? Because it's the same fallacious, fraudulent method you use to make your claims.

So, yes, we can do that, Denial!! I could point to big unknowns like electron spin or what mass "really is" or valency or the underlying aspects of chemical reactions in all their myriad glory. We DO NOT have a "FINAL ANSWER " to any of those things underlying basic chem and physics and engineering, Denial

See, we DON'T say that "known chemical reactions" is the same as saying "We have the final answer on how chemical reactions occur. " Even the page you pointed to says the same thing by pointing to unknowns in chemical synthesis, Daniel! Did you READ IT????

Your job was to point to something that is said to be a final answer, Daniel and you gave a list of things that you assert are "final answers"--- but you haven't settled on ONE nor shown HOW they are "final answers"...WHICH WAS WHAT YOU WERE ASKED TO DO BY ME.

Do it, (or tits or GTFO)  mental-masturbatory God-boy.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,15:44   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 22 2009,14:12)
Many biochemical reactions are known as well - in fact they descibe them with equations (how can they do that if they are not known?).

Milk+Flavour=Milkshake


Milk+Flavour=Milkshake
-------------------------- = How much milkshake each.
Number of People

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,15:52   

I'm asking for exactly the same simple (and antiscientific) thing you are asking for, Denial. That's all. It's very simple:

1. Point to a single thing that you claim is a "final answer" in science. Anything at all, but stick to one thing and don't ask me to pick it for you or explain it to you. YOU pick ONE thing that you claim is a "final answer" Surely YOU can do this, Denial, right? It's what you're asking others to provide for you, right? You have all of science to choose from...but pick ONE thing that you claim is a "final answer" in science  and stick to it, k?

2. Demonstrate and support a "final answer" by describing said thing in detail, Denial. This is what you are asking others to do with a biological pathway. Surely you can do that with ONE THING IN SCIENCE, ANYTHING AT ALL that YOU claim is a "final answer" in it, Denial.

3. I will then proceed to use your methods to "examine it in detail" and arrive at the same fraudulent Denialist conclusions you have, Denial.

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

It's all very simple, but you seem to be avoiding doing any of this yourself, Denial...why is that? Do you see how dishonest and fraudulent the approach is? It's YOUR approach, Denial, so embrace it, Tru God-Boy.

For extra credit, you can look through Wikipedia articles on "Philosophy of Science" "The Problem of Induction" and oh, let's just say ..."Zeno's Paradox," and see if you can synthesize them to arrive at an understanding of your fake-assery.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,15:52   

Daniel, you won't get the answers you need to save your soul here. I recommend Ray Martinez at talk.origins, he may put your troubled mind at rest.

Alternatively. you might consider my earlier, sincere recommendation to meditate on the words of Monoimus:

Quote
Omitting to seek after God, and creation, and things similar to these, seek for Him from (out of) thyself, and learn who it is that absolutely appropriates (unto Himself) all things in thee, and says, "My God my mind, my understanding, my soul, my body." And learn from whence are sorrow, and joy, and love, and hatred, and involuntary wakefulness, and involuntary drowsiness, and involuntary anger, and involuntary affection; and if you accurately investigate these (points), you will discover (God) Himself, unity and plurality, in thyself, according to that tittle, and that He finds the outlet (for Deity) to be from thyself.


You want peace of mind? Science is not the way! At leat not for you. Nor is faith without Sophia.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,17:00   

Quote


[SNIP]

According to this paper, there are several databases of known chemical reactions that scientists use to plan the synthesis of new drugs.

I'm going to assume they call them "known" because they are just that.

[SNIP]



What are the mechanisms of those reactions, Denial? I want an electron by electron, step by step, account of the mechanism by which any one of those reactions proceeds please. Don't bother telling me about all of them, just one will do. Please also detail the data supporting the mechanistic claims you make.

Since I can't wait for you to deign to respond, I'll choose a really simple reaction for you: The Diels-Alder cycloaddition. Please describe the mechanism of the Diels Alder reaction (a very commonly used reaction in synthesis btw) and the data which supports your mechanistic claim. Explain to us dullards how this is "settled science" in a manner that evolutionary biology is not.

Louis

P.S. I haven't the heart to remind him that this is what I do for a living. Oh wait, it seems I do. Please Denial, tell me about chemistry, I need a good laugh. ETA: I know Denial won't actually respond, he's too much of a fucking coward. He just chucks stuff around in the hope that it will impress someone. His bluffing is amusing, but it's very transparent. Watching him flail around and try to bullshit his way out of corners is funny.

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 22 2009,17:46   

I think it's been established ad nauseam that science will always leave gaps into which Daniel can squeeze his god, lubricated with steaming piles of personal incredulity.  

Isn't it time to take this thread outside and shoot it?  Or alternatively, talk about the flood?


Editation: Daniel teaching Louis about chemistry should also be good for a few laughs.

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

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2009,02:45   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 22 2009,13:12)
I'm going to assume they call them "known" because they are just that.

Many biochemical reactions are known as well - in fact they descibe them with equations (how can they do that if they are not known?).  

These things are known because they are experimentally verified.

Are there any known evolutionary pathways?

Sure. For example, based on what you know and believe, how long does it take to evolve a 30,000-fold increase in a particular protein's functional binding affinity, employing only the mechanisms of genetic variation (random wrt binding affinity) and selection from among the resulting variants?
   
Quote
Speaking of settled science and final answers...

This is a case of repeatable observation. If you don't know, feel free to use your faith to guide you to an estimate. I predict that you lack sufficient faith to do so.

Simply provide a number, a unit of time, and to demonstrate your rock-solid faith, the amount of money or property you are willing to bet that your answer is less than or equal to the correct answer.

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2009,02:58   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 21 2009,17:34)
Quote (JAM @ April 21 2009,00:18)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 20 2009,17:31)
To be able to look at all of this and say "no God required" -

You know, Dan, honest people don't put things they imagine other people saying in quotes.

What are you saying here JAM?  Are you saying that maybe you think that God is required?

Nope. I'm saying that you're dishonest because you are putting words in my mouth, a violation of the Ninth Commandment.

How do you defend a religion by relentlessly breaking at least one of its top ten Commandments, Danny?

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2009,02:59   

Poor Daniel. Happiness lies at the end of the rainbow.

Robert B. Lauglin:
Quote

 We often ask ourselves nowadays whether evolution is an engineer or magician – a discoverer and exploiter of preexisting physical principles or a worker of miracles – but we shouldn’t.   The former is theory, the latter is antitheory.
  Since collective instability is emergent, it is reasonable to ask at what scale collective principles of organization begin to matter in life. The question turns out to be impossible to answer crisply because emergence at intermediate scales are inherently ill-defined.

There is considerable circumstantial evidence that both stable and unstable emergence occur already at the scale of individual proteins.

The idea that the struggle to understand the natural world has come to an end is not only wrong, it is ludicrously wrong. We are surrounded by mysterious physical miracles, and the continuing, unfinished task of science is to unravel them.


Daniel, we cannot help you unless you state your problem. What is the problem?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2009,06:52   

Quote (Louis @ April 22 2009,23:00)
Quote


[SNIP]

According to this paper, there are several databases of known chemical reactions that scientists use to plan the synthesis of new drugs.

I'm going to assume they call them "known" because they are just that.

[SNIP]



What are the mechanisms of those reactions, Denial? I want an electron by electron, step by step, account of the mechanism by which any one of those reactions proceeds please. Don't bother telling me about all of them, just one will do. Please also detail the data supporting the mechanistic claims you make.

Since I can't wait for you to deign to respond, I'll choose a really simple reaction for you: The Diels-Alder cycloaddition. Please describe the mechanism of the Diels Alder reaction (a very commonly used reaction in synthesis btw) and the data which supports your mechanistic claim. Explain to us dullards how this is "settled science" in a manner that evolutionary biology is not.

Louis

P.S. I haven't the heart to remind him that this is what I do for a living. Oh wait, it seems I do. Please Denial, tell me about chemistry, I need a good laugh. ETA: I know Denial won't actually respond, he's too much of a fucking coward. He just chucks stuff around in the hope that it will impress someone. His bluffing is amusing, but it's very transparent. Watching him flail around and try to bullshit his way out of corners is funny.

I know this is repeat, but the page has turned, and I wouldn't want Denial to forgot to tell us all the mechanistic detail of a known chemical reaction.

I'm going to enjoy mapping mechanistic chemistry onto evolutionary biology both as analogy and as relevant science. I do hope that Denial can grow sufficient notochord (spine is beyond the maggot) to answer a simple question or two accurately.

Louis

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

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2009,10:35   

Quote (Quack @ April 23 2009,02:59)
Poor Daniel. Happiness lies at the end of the rainbow.

Robert B. Lauglin:
 
Quote

 We often ask ourselves nowadays whether evolution is an engineer or magician – a discoverer and exploiter of preexisting physical principles or a worker of miracles – but we shouldn’t.   The former is theory, the latter is antitheory.
  Since collective instability is emergent, it is reasonable to ask at what scale collective principles of organization begin to matter in life. The question turns out to be impossible to answer crisply because emergence at intermediate scales are inherently ill-defined.

There is considerable circumstantial evidence that both stable and unstable emergence occur already at the scale of individual proteins.

The idea that the struggle to understand the natural world has come to an end is not only wrong, it is ludicrously wrong. We are surrounded by mysterious physical miracles, and the continuing, unfinished task of science is to unravel them.


Daniel, we cannot help you unless you state your problem. What is the problem?

Actually, the first step is to admit there is a problem.  With his projection...I don't think he'll admit he has a problem.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2009,10:57   

Quote (Texas Teach @ April 21 2009,17:41)
Quote (Louis @ April 21 2009,16:09)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 21 2009,17:51)
[SNIP]

Oh, and quit trying to talk for gods by saying what is and is not insulting to them, Daniel. You aren't privy to the thoughts of any gods -- no matter how much you may want to imagine yourself in that role

{Reads back}

Oh I see Denial is yet another Self-Proclaimed Spokesman For God (TM Patent Pending). I do so love it when some religious fruitcake tells me what their god thinks. I'm always curious to find out how they know, and of course how what they know can be distinguished from a) any other religious claim and b) the pathological ramblings of my (now sadly committed) chum Emile who thinks he's Napoleon. Oh and of course, I'm always curious to find out if they can disprove my contention that it is impossible for them to demonstrate they are not a child molester (but I'm only curious about this when they make claims of a specific form).

But what about the thoughts of the youth who transports pizza to your home?  Surely he must have some especially valuable insights on the mind of god(s).

bwaaaa

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

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

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2009,11:02   

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ April 22 2009,14:46)
God, who cares.  It's all word games to Denial.  He doesn't give a flying fuck about science, and nobody here thinks he does.  Like all such dishonest stealth religious apologetics (and that's all he offers, 100%), the actual useful content of his epistemology is zero--by design.  He's just trying to distract himself and others from reality and prop up his doomed superstitions for one more day, week, or year.

He's like AFDave lite, just not as smart and less energetic.  At least AFD showed us a depth and breadth of applied intentional ignorance that you just don't see every day.  Denial's just another regular guy, with nothing much to say, who can't shut up because he's AFUOJ.*

*All fucked up on Jesus

Edited because they put an edit button up there

quite.

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

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

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2009,11:03   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 22 2009,15:44)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 22 2009,14:12)
Many biochemical reactions are known as well - in fact they descibe them with equations (how can they do that if they are not known?).

Milk+Flavour=Milkshake


Milk+Flavour=Milkshake
-------------------------- = How much milkshake each.
Number of People

bwaaaaa

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

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

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

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2009,11:13   

Quote (Louis @ April 22 2009,17:00)
Quote


[SNIP]

According to this paper, there are several databases of known chemical reactions that scientists use to plan the synthesis of new drugs.

I'm going to assume they call them "known" because they are just that.

[SNIP]



What are the mechanisms of those reactions, Denial? I want an electron by electron, step by step, account of the mechanism by which any one of those reactions proceeds please. Don't bother telling me about all of them, just one will do. Please also detail the data supporting the mechanistic claims you make.

Since I can't wait for you to deign to respond, I'll choose a really simple reaction for you: The Diels-Alder cycloaddition. Please describe the mechanism of the Diels Alder reaction (a very commonly used reaction in synthesis btw) and the data which supports your mechanistic claim. Explain to us dullards how this is "settled science" in a manner that evolutionary biology is not.

Louis

P.S. I haven't the heart to remind him that this is what I do for a living. Oh wait, it seems I do. Please Denial, tell me about chemistry, I need a good laugh. ETA: I know Denial won't actually respond, he's too much of a fucking coward. He just chucks stuff around in the hope that it will impress someone. His bluffing is amusing, but it's very transparent. Watching him flail around and try to bullshit his way out of corners is funny.

hear hear

daniel seems to think every particle is written into the Book Of Life and someday there will be a full accounting, even if only in the slumbering dreams of an infinitely deep sleeping infinite being

interesting blend of some sort of physicalist realism and sheer flat out knowledge denial.  

daniel just prove you ain't a kiddy fiddler, to your pathetic level of detail required to satisfy your particular fetish about scientific explanation, and I'll go to sunday school with you buddy.

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

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

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

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2009,12:00   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 23 2009,17:13)
[SNIP]

daniel just prove you ain't a kiddy fiddler, to your pathetic level of detail required to satisfy your particular fetish about scientific explanation, and I'll go to sunday school with you buddy.

I can't be bothered with Denial demonstrating my contention that it is impossible for him to prove that he is not a child molester is false (or not) at the moment. He cannot and will not do it any way.

However, since Denial has decided to bluff on my turf, I'm very, very keen to see him discuss the mechanism of the extremely well known chemical reaction commonly known as the Diels-Alder cycloaddition (or Diels-Alder reaction), or indeed any other chemical reaction of his choice.

I am predicting that he lacks the cojones or ability to back up his claims. That's not a very scary prediction. We have 30 pages of data demonstrating this precise trend.

Louis

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

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2009,15:44   

Quote (Louis @ April 23 2009,11:00)
I am predicting that he lacks the cojones or ability to back up his claims. That's not a very scary prediction. We have 30 pages of data demonstrating this precise trend.

I am predicting that he lacks sufficient faith to answer (or predict the answer) to my question:

Quote
How long does it take to evolve a 30,000-fold increase in a particular protein's functional binding affinity, employing only the mechanisms of genetic variation (random wrt binding affinity) and selection from among the resulting variants?


He also lacks the faith to bet on the veracity of his answer/prediction. In fact, the only interesting question is, which challenge will he pretend to answer first?

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2009,16:59   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 22 2009,15:44)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 22 2009,14:12)
Many biochemical reactions are known as well - in fact they descibe them with equations (how can they do that if they are not known?).

Milk+Flavour=Milkshake


Milk+Flavour=Milkshake
-------------------------- = How much milkshake each.
Number of People

Post of the whatever you call it these days.  ive laughed my ass off over and over.  Denial you need to draw up a new character.

ETa  louis consider daniels denial of the existence scientific knowledge.  how on earth could he possibly give a fuck about Gods billiard balls and avogadros number.  or anything else that chemists discuss over steaming vats of putrid vaporous chemicals at secret meetings where they discuss godless evilutionary atheist conspiracies.

its a get out of jail free card, playable at any moment.  it's some attempt to theologically and epistemologically affirm the consequent in a consistent and designed way.  

oh yeah well WERE YOU THERE  

and please fill in the gaps in explanatory accounts from scientific knowledge, those gaps that result from the deviation of an account or model (something, could be a old testament book or something right)

it doesn't matter

lets call it an explanatory model  we are interested in the deviation from this model and reality.

Or in the case of godless evilution we must consider the disparity between these atheists models of evolution and historical fact.

yeah "science"* vs THE ONE TRUE HISTORY THAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED INDEPENDENT OF AN OBSERVER wait INDEPENDENT OF AN OBSERVER WHO IS OBSERVING WITHIN THIS REFERENCE FRAME fuck AN OBSERVER WHO IS UH OBSERVING LIKE EVERYWHERE AT ONE TIME THAT ALSO IS THE CHRISTIAN GOD YWHW ETC.

got it.

science for denial is like story telling.

life is just killing time until the Rupture

sad cunt sodding sad


*falsely so called lol

--------------
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: April 23 2009,17:08   

:D

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 23 2009,20:09   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 24 2009,00:59)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ April 22 2009,15:44)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 22 2009,14:12)
Many biochemical reactions are known as well - in fact they descibe them with equations (how can they do that if they are not known?).

Milk+Flavour=Milkshake


Milk+Flavour=Milkshake
-------------------------- = How much milkshake each.
Number of People

Post of the whatever you call it these days.  ive laughed my ass off over and over.  Denial you need to draw up a new character.

ETa  louis consider daniels denial of the existence scientific knowledge.  how on earth could he possibly give a fuck about Gods billiard balls and avogadros number.  or anything else that chemists discuss over steaming vats of putrid vaporous chemicals at secret meetings where they discuss godless evilutionary atheist conspiracies.

its a get out of jail free card, playable at any moment.  it's some attempt to theologically and epistemologically affirm the consequent in a consistent and designed way.  

oh yeah well WERE YOU THERE  

and please fill in the gaps in explanatory accounts from scientific knowledge, those gaps that result from the deviation of an account or model (something, could be a old testament book or something right)

it doesn't matter

lets call it an explanatory model  we are interested in the deviation from this model and reality.

Or in the case of godless evilution we must consider the disparity between these atheists models of evolution and historical fact.

yeah "science"* vs THE ONE TRUE HISTORY THAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED INDEPENDENT OF AN OBSERVER wait INDEPENDENT OF AN OBSERVER WHO IS OBSERVING WITHIN THIS REFERENCE FRAME fuck AN OBSERVER WHO IS UH OBSERVING LIKE EVERYWHERE AT ONE TIME THAT ALSO IS THE CHRISTIAN GOD YWHW ETC.

got it.

science for denial is like story telling.

life is just killing time until the Rupture

sad cunt sodding sad


*falsely so called lol

Yeah, not that I've got anything against Chemists...or anything, but they truly are a bunch of godless bastards.

Smug whitecoated ladies men the frikken lot of 'em.

They are the real reason creationist's hate science.

Do creationists hate Stephen Hawking?
No, they love him because he gave 'em the big bang.

What did chemists ever do?

Well I'll tell you, they gave us vast quantities of Uranium 235, Louis and Zyklon B that's what.

If it wasn't for chemists god would still exist and nobody would be the wiser.

Heck if I had my way we would get rid of Chemistry as a subject at high school and just have a bible and a bunsen burner, some crack ....oh fuck ....crack.... blame the frikken chemists for that as well.

Scum. the lot of 'em.



(If there is any Mathmaticians, Geologists, Meteoroligists (whateva), who would like a Tard Rant® just PM me)

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2009,03:56   

What did chemists ever do for us?

The aqueduct?

Louis

P.S. Nice Tard Rant ® K.E. I'd give it 9 out of a possible 10 dribbling loons. For the full 10 you'd have needed to mention government mind control by fluoridating the water supply.

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2009,08:53   

A word of advice for those who engage with Daniel:

How to retrain a SAM

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2009,08:59   

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 24 2009,15:53)
A word of advice for those who engage with Daniel:

How to retrain a SAM

Thanks Lou, the definition is spot-on!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2009,09:03   

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 24 2009,14:53)
A word of advice for those who engage with Daniel:

How to retrain a SAM

You are comparing engaging Denial to something a sane person might like to engage in. You have tarnished something beautiful and good (sadomasochist sexual practises) with something ugly, tawdry and nasty (dealing with the Denials of this world).

{takes out rolled up newspaper and swats Lou on the nose with it}

NO! NO! BAD MODERATOR! NO!

Louis

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2009,09:30   

Quote (Louis @ April 24 2009,10:03)
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 24 2009,14:53)
A word of advice for those who engage with Daniel:

How to retrain a SAM

You are comparing engaging Denial to something a sane person might like to engage in. You have tarnished something beautiful and good (sadomasochist sexual practises) with something ugly, tawdry and nasty (dealing with the Denials of this world).

{takes out rolled up newspaper and swats Lou on the nose with it}

NO! NO! BAD MODERATOR! NO!

Louis

Moderator emeritus.

...for the record, I have retired.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2009,11:59   

Quote (Lou FCD @ April 24 2009,15:30)
Quote (Louis @ April 24 2009,10:03)
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 24 2009,14:53)
A word of advice for those who engage with Daniel:

How to retrain a SAM

You are comparing engaging Denial to something a sane person might like to engage in. You have tarnished something beautiful and good (sadomasochist sexual practises) with something ugly, tawdry and nasty (dealing with the Denials of this world).

{takes out rolled up newspaper and swats Lou on the nose with it}

NO! NO! BAD MODERATOR! NO!

Louis

Moderator emeritus.

...for the record, I have retired.

But...but...but....we LOVE you!

But still, the rolled up newspaper applies. If you can take something beautiful like fixing someone to a bench, with a ball gag in their mouth and a variety of leather accoutrements, and spanking them to within an inch of their safe word and compare it to the Augean stable cleansing of dealing with Denial then, well, I don't know what to say.

You've changed man, you've changed.

Louis

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2009,12:15   

Quote (Louis @ April 24 2009,11:59)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ April 24 2009,15:30)

Moderator emeritus.

...for the record, I have retired.

[snip Loose's blatant, shameless man-flirting]

But still, the rolled up newspaper applies. If you can take something beautiful like fixing someone to a bench, with a ball gag in their mouth and a variety of leather accoutrements, and spanking them to within an inch of their safe word and compare it to the Augean stable cleansing of dealing with Denial then, well, I don't know what to say.

You've changed man, you've changed.

Louis

It's the eddication. Those homo darwinain chance-worshipping materialists like his beloved "Doc". Everything that Ben Stein said would come to pass. It's the fulfillment of prophecy -- PROPHECY I TELLS YA. THE END IS NIGH!!**



**This Tardologue™ brought to you by Ceiling Loudspeakers Inc.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2009,12:53   

It's important to know your safeword:

Not even remotely safe for work

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2009,15:41   

Where exactly is this "Nigh" that some think the end is near it? :p

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 24 2009,23:45   

Is phlogiston the epicycles of chemistry?

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2009,10:38   

Quote (deadman_932 @ April 22 2009,13:34)
       
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 22 2009,14:12)
           
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 21 2009,17:04)
       

Don't forget to name those [conclusively detailed!!!] "final answers" in chem and physics, Denial -- so I can show you, using your own duplicitous methods, how they cannot be claimed to be "final answers," -- "Final answers" in science are figments of your fevered god-addled imagination, some serious category error, as well as a sprinkle of your usual fallacy-mongering.


According to this paper, there are several databases of known chemical reactions that scientists use to plan the synthesis of new drugs.

I'm going to assume they call them "known" because they are just that.

Many biochemical reactions are known as well - in fact they descibe them with equations (how can they do that if they are not known?).  

These things are known because they are experimentally verified.

Are there any known evolutionary pathways?

Speaking of settled science and final answers...

You've all made comments regarding the age of the Earth and the flood which led me to believe that "settled science" had excluded a 10,000 year old Earth and a global flood.  Is that not settled science?

How about phlogiston, the flat Earth and the geocentric universe?  Have we reached a final answer on those yet?

So you're not going to pick one of those and show me how it's a "final answer" Daniel? Because that's what I asked you to do, several times now. THat's what you've been asking others to do for YOU, Denial, but now you get all coy and virginally shy? Well, I'm here to ream your exits, Denial -- so show me WHICH of the list you mentioned are claimed BY YOU TO DEMONSTRABLY BE A FINAL ANSWER, AND SHOW ME HOW YOU KNOW THAT

Just for example, if I use your approach and examine hypothetical "final answers" in chemical reactions by subjecting them to increasing details ( you called this approach "looking more closely" or "examining in detail" )...

Do you think we might find that there are things about said reactions that we don't know about? See, that's what Daniel did. I can do that with anything that you care to name, Denial. Anything, even your claim of knowing about god, or the computer that you use to post your inane blather. We don't know a "final answer" about how your computer works, so using Denial's logic -- we can't claim to know it works. You can't claim to "know" at all even a single scientific "final answer" to how your computer works, Denial...not ONE single final answer.

Does that remind you of what you claimed about science not knowing a final answer on one single biological pathway if you subject it to ever-increasing detailed scrutiny, Denial? Why, yes, it does!! Why??? Because it's the same fallacious, fraudulent method you use to make your claims.

So, yes, we can do that, Denial!! I could point to big unknowns like electron spin or what mass "really is" or valency or the underlying aspects of chemical reactions in all their myriad glory. We DO NOT have a "FINAL ANSWER " to any of those things underlying basic chem and physics and engineering, Denial

See, we DON'T say that "known chemical reactions" is the same as saying "We have the final answer on how chemical reactions occur. " Even the page you pointed to says the same thing by pointing to unknowns in chemical synthesis, Daniel! Did you READ IT????

Your job was to point to something that is said to be a final answer, Daniel and you gave a list of things that you assert are "final answers"--- but you haven't settled on ONE nor shown HOW they are "final answers"...WHICH WAS WHAT YOU WERE ASKED TO DO BY ME.

Do it, (or tits or GTFO)  mental-masturbatory God-boy.

I can see how this is going to go.  You are like lawyers looking for loopholes.  You have no interest in tackling my challenge directly but are rather seeking to dismiss it on a technicality.

You want to pretend that, in the entire history of scientific discovery on this planet, nothing has been decided, no questions have been answered, nothing is known with any certainty.  I say "pretend" because several of you also claim that all of your knowledge is empirical.  If you put those two statements together, it means - you know nothing.  So which is it deadman?  Do you know nothing or is all your knowledge empirically verified?  You can't have it both ways - one of these is a lie.

I've listed several examples and you pretend now that you want to concentrate on only one.  Fine.  You want one example?  How about common descent?  Is that settled science?  Is that the final answer?  Or is there still debate raging over the question?  

According to one poster here:      
Quote
the age of the earth, the reality of common descent and the central role of natural selection are long-settled issues within professional scientific discourse.
link      
Quote
Within the domain of science proper questions such a the reality of universal common descent are long settled science, and will remain settled.
link      
Quote
There are many notroversial subjects. The age of the earth. The reality of common descent. The essential role of natural selection and unguided contingency in the history of life. The continuity of human beings with the natural world. The embodiment of human consciousness. None is subject to rational scientific dispute
link      
Quote
Similarly, the question of common descent is long-settled science, supported by mountains of consilient data. There is absolutely no credible scientific doubt of unbroken lineage from 3 billion years of single celled organisms through the explosion of multi-celled body plans to the present radiation of organisms, including you and me.
link      
Quote
Now you're back to expressing doubt vis absolutely settled science (universal common descent).
link

So deadman, is common descent settled science (IOW, the final answer) or was Bill lying?

--------------
"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: April 25 2009,10:58   

Quote (JAM @ April 21 2009,00:18)

How about answering one simple question--were you lying when you claimed they [enzymes] were "specific," because in reality, they are merely selective?

JAM,

A Google Scholar search for the phrase "enzymes are highly specific" turned up 428 results.

A similar search for the phrase "enzyme is highly specific" returned 811 results.

A search for "enzyme is specific" produced 2160 results.

And a search for "enzymes are specific" gives 928 results.

So, either I'm in good company or all of these scientists are lying too.  (In which case you have a lot of letters to write to the editors of those journals!)

Chop chop!

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2009,11:01   

Or you're engaging in what is known as sophistric fraudulent Denialist tactics...why don't you just directly answer what I asked you, denial?

Give me an example of anything in science that is pointed to as a FINAL ANSWER.

Ask yourself why the philosophy of science ... the basis of science... embraces the idea that we CANNOT have "final answers" -- and this constitutes the greatest strength of science?

Why not read up on the topic at   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science  and follow the links there to find out for yourself why it is that science can't claim "final answers" but only "provisional truths" (with a small t) that are seen as open to revision or change because of the limits of how we can know what we know?

Here's a quote from that very Wikipedia page that I asked you BEFORE to read about, yet you seem to have been too intellectually dishonest to have done so:

 
Quote
The most powerful statements in science are those with the widest applicability. Newton's Third Law — "for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction" — is a powerful statement because it applies to every action, anywhere, and at any time.

But it is not possible for scientists to have tested every incidence of an action, and found a reaction. How is it, then, that they can assert that the Third Law is in some sense true? They have, of course, tested many, many actions, and in each one have been able to find the corresponding reaction. But can we be sure that the next time we test the Third Law, it will be found to hold true?


Induction
One solution to this problem is to rely on the notion of induction. Inductive reasoning maintains that if a situation holds in all observed cases, then the situation holds in all cases. So, after completing a series of experiments that support the Third Law, one is justified in maintaining that the Law holds in all cases.

Explaining why induction commonly works has been somewhat problematic. One cannot use deduction, the usual process of moving logically from premise to conclusion, because there is simply no syllogism that will allow such a move. No matter how many times 17th century biologists observed white swans, and in how many different locations, there is no deductive path that can lead them to the conclusion that all swans are white. This is just as well, since, as it turned out, that conclusion would have been wrong. Similarly, it is at least possible that an observation will be made tomorrow that shows an occasion in which an action is not accompanied by a reaction; the same is true of any scientific law.


Read the parts just in bold if too many words confuse you, Denial. Read them again if you have to, and again...UNTIL YOU GRASP WHAT THE WORDS MEAN

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Lowell



Posts: 101
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2009,12:13   

For Christ's sake Daniel, "settled science" does not equal "final answer." Quit conflating terms!

Even if a scientific principle is considered "settled" to the point where it can be relied upon without retesting it at every turn, that does not mean that it is a "final answer" beyond being revised or discarded in the future.

A scientific theory is provisional, even if we have great confidence in it because it has worked so well in the past.

What is so hard to get about that?

--------------
The resurrection of Jesus Christ is one of the most well documented events of antiquity. Barry Arrington, Jan 17, 2012.

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2009,12:53   

Quote (Lowell @ April 25 2009,12:13)
For Christ's sake Daniel, "settled science" does not equal "final answer." Quit conflating terms!

Even if a scientific principle is considered "settled" to the point where it can be relied upon without retesting it at every turn, that does not mean that it is a "final answer" beyond being revised or discarded in the future.

A scientific theory is provisional, even if we have great confidence in it because it has worked so well in the past.

What is so hard to get about that?

It doesn't fit his preconceptions or the idea that his religious beliefs provide a "final answer", so everything else must do so as well.  This type of projection seems really common to his ilk.  Like the idea that "Evolutionists" worship Darwin and call themselves Darwinists.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2009,13:33   

Quote (Badger3k @ April 25 2009,20:53)
 
Quote (Lowell @ April 25 2009,12:13)
For Christ's sake Daniel, "settled science" does not equal "final answer." Quit conflating terms!

Even if a scientific principle is considered "settled" to the point where it can be relied upon without retesting it at every turn, that does not mean that it is a "final answer" beyond being revised or discarded in the future.

A scientific theory is provisional, even if we have great confidence in it because it has worked so well in the past.

What is so hard to get about that?

It doesn't fit his preconceptions or the idea that his religious beliefs provide a "final answer", so everything else must do so as well.  This type of projection seems really common to his ilk.  Like the idea that "Evolutionists" worship Darwin and call themselves Darwinists.


Indeed, Daniel should accept that his conversion to Christianity is totally provisional subject to actual evidence for the ghost or whatever it was of Jesus Christ entering his body while he was wide awake and presumably in broad daylight with onlookers who ....erm ....we can't exactly call reliable witnesses.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2009,14:12   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 25 2009,09:58)
Quote (JAM @ April 21 2009,00:18)

How about answering one simple question--were you lying when you claimed they [enzymes] were "specific," because in reality, they are merely selective?

JAM,

A Google Scholar search for the phrase "enzymes are highly specific" turned up 428 results.

A similar search for the phrase "enzyme is highly specific" returned 811 results.

A search for "enzyme is specific" produced 2160 results.

And a search for "enzymes are specific" gives 928 results.

So, either I'm in good company or all of these scientists are lying too.  (In which case you have a lot of letters to write to the editors of those journals!)

Chop chop!

Dan,

Your dishonesty, cowardice, and lack of faith are amazing.

You didn't claim that they were "highly specific," you claimed that they simply were specific. You had to, because if they aren't specific, the evolutionary pathways that produced them become painfully obvious.

And no, the other scientists aren't obviously lying, because there are some enzymes that meet an empirical criterion of specificity, which if you thought about it before engaging your massive ego, is a negative and can never be conclusively demonstrated.

Your challenge is to support your claim that the enzymes amino acid synthetic pathways are specific, particularly in the sense that they don't do the same thing to more than one of the basic amino acids or their precursors.

You won't, because you are a rotten, mendacious man who rejects the most fundamental teaching of Jesus Christ to support a political agenda.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2009,15:01   

Even if there were some enzymes that did react with only one particular amino acid (is that what "specific" means here?), how would that undermine part of the current theory? I don't know any reason why a the gene for a nonspecific enzyme couldn't accumulate changes that cause it to ignore all but one of the amino acids that are present in organisms of that species.

But anyway, what's all this about trying to undermine current theory by pointing to things that haven't been resolved at this time? Refuting a concept requires addressing what the concept says, not what it doesn't say.

Henry

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2009,16:07   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 25 2009,11:38)
So deadman, is common descent settled science (IOW, the final answer) or was Bill lying?

So now I'm the arbiter of all that is true, Daniel?

OK: you're full of shit. Give it up.

Deadman and JAM might find my use of the term "settled science" pernicious, which might be worth discussing. But whatever the outcome of that discussion, the intention of the passages you quote was to underscore that, your feigned interest in science notwithstanding, you really are a science denier in the worst sense, as evidenced by your embrace - typical of creationists - of the hope that there is some possibility of a young, 10,000 year earth, and of special creation for individual species, particularly the human species. Like it or not, the leading edge of science has moved on from these questions, which have assumed their places in fund of background knowledge that becomes the framework within which new science is done.

I am a fan of Wittgenstein's little volume On Certainty, his last work (patched together from notes and notebooks written during the last 1 1/2 years of his life), in which he argues that pragmatic certainty inheres not in absolute knowledge that what one believes is correct, but rather in the observation that (to paraphrase) "if we can be wrong about that, then we don't really know anything."
   
Quote
If a blind man were to ask me "Have you got two hands?" I should not make sure by looking. If I were to have any doubt of it, then I don't know why I should trust my eyes. For why shouldn't I test my eyes by looking to find out whether I see my two hands? What is to be tested by what?

[later]

That is to say, the questions that we raise and our doubts depend on the fact that some propositions are exempt from doubt, are as it were like hinges on which those turn....If I want the door to turn, the hinges must stay put.

A 4.5 billion year earth, common descent, and the historical continuity of the human species with the rest of the natural world have long attained the status of the "background" world picture, the hinges around which our actions turn, including scientific investigation. There may be a basis in the future for justified doubt of those propositions, but at present there is none. To reject these facts is really to doubt not particular scientific assertions, but rather the value of the scientific process generally, for if these facts can be doubted, all scientific assertions must be doubted.

Of course you are free to do that, although in so doing you render further conversation on these topics inherently futile within a scientific context, as you have become a science denier and no longer share the essential frame of reference that makes scientific knowledge pragmatically attainable.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2009,17:11   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 25 2009,15:07)
Deadman and JAM might find my use of the term "settled science" pernicious, which might be worth discussing.

Pernicious? No. It's probably very confusing to laypeople without accompanying it with the caveat that overturning "settled science" is what makes one famous. After all, you tend to get a Nobel if you modify what we call "The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology."

I've always found that hard to explain to people who are under the misconception that scientists are all about knowing lots of stuff, when really we're all about being the first to know a few special things.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2009,17:19   

No one here is conned by your bullshit games, Denial.

-- You insist that people present you with scientific "Final Answers" before YOU will accept them (even though you *also* say scientists are the final arbiters and you try to bounce back and forth between those mutually-exclusive claims).

-- The "Final" part of "Final Answer" indicates an unconditional absolute, Denial. There is no "after-final" answer following a "Final Answer."

-- People point out, truthfully and honestly, that science cannot be said to deal in such absolute "Final Answers," and you are given  references for that, like the Gould quote and the Philosophy of Science info. You didn't even bother to read those -- or if you did, that merely compounds your fucked-up-ness.

-- You then try the smarmiest, most desperate word games and fallacies --  including the cheap stunt of trying to set people (who disagree with you) against each other to distract from your own failure and duplicity.

When Reciprocating Bill uses the term "settled" YOU try to claim it means the same thing as "final answer" then YOU try to get me to argue with Bill because YOU can't even begin to address YOUR own falsehoods, YOURSELF?

What kind of a God do you worship, Denial? It sure doesn't seem to be a Christian one, when you permit yourself to use any unethical or immoral tactic.

But people here have seen clownish pseudochristian clones like you time and again, so that's just another big fail for you.

I'm sure you're used to it

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2009,17:22   

Quote (Henry J @ April 25 2009,14:01)
Even if there were some enzymes that did react with only one particular amino acid (is that what "specific" means here?), how would that undermine part of the current theory?

It wouldn't. It's necessary, not sufficient.
Quote
I don't know any reason why a the gene for a nonspecific enzyme couldn't accumulate changes that cause it to ignore all but one of the amino acids that are present in organisms of that species.

There isn't.
Quote
But anyway, what's all this about trying to undermine current theory by pointing to things that haven't been resolved at this time? Refuting a concept requires addressing what the concept says, not what it doesn't say.

It's about BS, which is all Denial has.

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 25 2009,20:39   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 25 2009,11:58)
Quote (JAM @ April 21 2009,00:18)

How about answering one simple question--were you lying when you claimed they [enzymes] were "specific," because in reality, they are merely selective?

JAM,

A Google Scholar search for the phrase "enzymes are highly specific" turned up 428 results.

A similar search for the phrase "enzyme is highly specific" returned 811 results.

A search for "enzyme is specific" produced 2160 results.

And a search for "enzymes are specific" gives 928 results.

So, either I'm in good company or all of these scientists are lying too.  (In which case you have a lot of letters to write to the editors of those journals!)

Chop chop!

You really think that finding particualr phrases in scientific papers, without even reading those papers to uderstand the context, supports your claim about enzymes in the context in which it was presented?

Jesus Haploid Christ on a pogo stick, you grow stupider by the day.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,05:17   

{sigh}

It would appear that Denial is too stupid to understand the difference between "settled science" (i.e. the product of multiple lines of consilient evidence from a variety of fields derived from a process which gives provisional answers to specific questions) and "final answers" (absolutist dogma derived from an assumed perfect source of knowledge and thus utterly unchangeable). One of these things exists, the other doesn't.

Hence, again, why I have since-a-dawn-a-time been banging on about Denial's major malfunction being a complete lack of understanding of basic philosophy.

Tragically, anyone mentioning the provisional nature of science/knowledge is doing so correctly, but to the utterly moronic (i.e. Denial) this is seen as a weakness. Equally tragically, anyone mentioning the power, and comparatively certain knowledge derived from the scientific method is damned, again by the utterly moronic (i.e. Denial) as a dogmatist. Extremely tragically, this sort of intellectually dishonest reaction is exactly what we expect from the utterly moronic (i.e. Denial).

The pointlessness, it overwhelms me!

Louis

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,06:44   

Quote (JonF @ April 26 2009,04:39)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 25 2009,11:58)
 
Quote (JAM @ April 21 2009,00:18)

How about answering one simple question--were you lying when you claimed they [enzymes] were "specific," because in reality, they are merely selective?

JAM,

A Google Scholar search for the phrase "enzymes are highly specific" turned up 428 results.

A similar search for the phrase "enzyme is highly specific" returned 811 results.

A search for "enzyme is specific" produced 2160 results.

And a search for "enzymes are specific" gives 928 results.

So, either I'm in good company or all of these scientists are lying too.  (In which case you have a lot of letters to write to the editors of those journals!)

Chop chop!

You really think that finding particualr phrases in scientific papers, without even reading those papers to uderstand the context, supports your claim about enzymes in the context in which it was presented?

Jesus Haploid Christ on a pogo stick, you grow stupider by the day.

I think Daniel has invented a new false logical argument.

Argumentum ad Google

He needs help though.



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,09:04   

Quote (k.e.. @ April 26 2009,07:44)
I think Daniel has invented a new false logical argument.

Argumentum ad Google

He needs help though.


Nope. AfDave had it first.

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=23969

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=31279

(Followed by a long discussion about how likely papers from the 1940's were to be indexed on Google Scholar.)

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....p=32072

(I note the extreme dishonesty in his choice of search terms at http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....32117.)

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,09:07   

Quote
Indeed, Daniel should accept that his conversion to Christianity is totally provisional subject to actual evidence for the ghost or whatever it was of Jesus Christ entering his body while he was wide awake and presumably in broad daylight with onlookers who ....erm ....we can't exactly call reliable witnesses.


I think you hit the nail right on the head there.  I asked ‘what’s the problem’, but he won’t tell. Having followed him from the bathroom to his own abode here, it has become increasingly clear in spite of his denial that he is seeking confirmation of faith. He is on a quest for absolute certainty; thirsting for certainty at a level that science, i.e. nothing ever can satisfy.

 
Quote
(Louis:) Hence, again, why I have since-a-dawn-a-time been banging on about Denial's major malfunction being a complete lack of understanding of basic philosophy.


Right. And after having repaired that, on to Sartre, Kierkegaard, Swedenborg… Tao Te Ching, Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads – anything as long as it would keep his mind off science…

Isn’t his basic problem that of learning how to live with uncertainty?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,11:51   

Quote (Quack @ April 26 2009,10:07)
Having followed him from the bathroom to his own abode here, it has become increasingly clear in spite of his denial that he is seeking confirmation of faith. He is on a quest for absolute certainty; thirsting for certainty at a level that science, i.e. nothing ever can satisfy.

Exactly so. In the end, Denial's ultimate purpose is to convince himself.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,12:00   

Quote (Quack @ April 26 2009,15:07)
[SNIP]

Isn’t his basic problem that of learning how to live with uncertainty?

Yup.

Oh and also that science doesn't prove Jesus.

And that he's dishonest and thinks lying for Jesus is all well and good.

And....

Ok bored now.

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,12:04   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 25 2009,22:07)
[SNIP]

Of course you are free to do that, although in so doing you render further conversation on these topics inherently futile within a scientific context, as you have become a science denier and no longer share the essential frame of reference that makes scientific knowledge pragmatically attainable.

More than that, he's a hypocrite. He's using a machine, built using knowledge discovered by the scientific method, to communicate* with people hundreds/thousands of miles away to try to argue the invalidity of science.

Pass me a shot gun, I'll take out his kneecaps and see if he asks for scientifically derived analgesia.

Whaddya mean that's a bit harsh? ;-)

Louis

*I use the term loosely.

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,13:06   

Quote (deadman_932 @ April 25 2009,15:19)
No one here is conned by your bullshit games, Denial.

-- You insist that people present you with scientific "Final Answers" before YOU will accept them (even though you *also* say scientists are the final arbiters and you try to bounce back and forth between those mutually-exclusive claims).

-- The "Final" part of "Final Answer" indicates an unconditional absolute, Denial. There is no "after-final" answer following a "Final Answer."

-- People point out, truthfully and honestly, that science cannot be said to deal in such absolute "Final Answers," and you are given  references for that, like the Gould quote and the Philosophy of Science info. You didn't even bother to read those -- or if you did, that merely compounds your fucked-up-ness.

-- You then try the smarmiest, most desperate word games and fallacies --  including the cheap stunt of trying to set people (who disagree with you) against each other to distract from your own failure and duplicity.

When Reciprocating Bill uses the term "settled" YOU try to claim it means the same thing as "final answer" then YOU try to get me to argue with Bill because YOU can't even begin to address YOUR own falsehoods, YOURSELF?

What kind of a God do you worship, Denial? It sure doesn't seem to be a Christian one, when you permit yourself to use any unethical or immoral tactic.

But people here have seen clownish pseudochristian clones like you time and again, so that's just another big fail for you.

I'm sure you're used to it

In the interest of moving the discussion along then, I will amend my definition of "detailed pathway".  Just remove "final answer" and replace it with "settled science".

Happy?

--------------
"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: April 26 2009,13:08   

[quote=JAM,April 25 2009,15:22]  
Quote (Henry J @ April 25 2009,14:01)

   
Quote
I don't know any reason why a the gene for a nonspecific enzyme couldn't accumulate changes that cause it to ignore all but one of the amino acids that are present in organisms of that species.

There isn't.

Please explain how a "non-specific enzyme" would work in any real system.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,13:49   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,13:08)
Please explain how a "non-specific enzyme" would work in any real system.

Denial, I'm pretty sure we need you to define "real" system.

But in case your definition includes things on this planet, we've been around this mulberry bush before, at least twice, or maybe three times. I forgot if these rotations were clockwise or counterclockwise, but apparently you aren't dizzy enough yet.

You really need to find a new gig; this one isn't working out for you at all, and it's getting really boring.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,14:26   

Quote (Quack @ April 26 2009,17:07)
Quote
Indeed, Daniel should accept that his conversion to Christianity is totally provisional subject to actual evidence for the ghost or whatever it was of Jesus Christ entering his body while he was wide awake and presumably in broad daylight with onlookers who ....erm ....we can't exactly call reliable witnesses.


I think you hit the nail right on the head there.  I asked ‘what’s the problem’, but he won’t tell. Having followed him from the bathroom to his own abode here, it has become increasingly clear in spite of his denial that he is seeking confirmation of faith. He is on a quest for absolute certainty; thirsting for certainty at a level that science, i.e. nothing ever can satisfy.

   
Quote
(Louis:) Hence, again, why I have since-a-dawn-a-time been banging on about Denial's major malfunction being a complete lack of understanding of basic philosophy.


Right. And after having repaired that, on to Sartre, Kierkegaard, Swedenborg… Tao Te Ching, Bhagavad Gita, the Upanishads – anything as long as it would keep his mind off science…

Isn’t his basic problem that of learning how to live with uncertainty?

Upanishads???????

*cough*...*choke*

Daniel doesn't do Comparitive  Mythology  only Scientism.

His ego is far too large to accept some chased by hords sandaled dusty mystic's words of wisdom, even ones nailed to a cross by Biggus Dickus and his band of bloody bodice rippers.

Daniel if he was there would have been on the board of of the Temple arguing for the staus quo, quoting the ancient scrolls.

His none too recent immersion at some pomo christo ashram with his subsequent self inflicted rapturous mind-gasm promising everlasting cross eyes has him never coming up for air for eternity.

Rebirth as an old fart, a veritibal Guru of ...erm...nothing much.

Or maybe it was a bedroom conversion, the female of the species never takes prisoners only total devourment awaits the lost neophite. Although it can be devine, it can lead to awkward moments in groups with rational people.

So Daniel tell us more about your conversion

When
Where
Who
What
Why?

I suspect he wields his Bible passive aggressively over the family dining table. If he has one.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,15:17   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,13:06)
In the interest of moving the discussion along then, I will amend my definition of "detailed pathway".  Just remove "final answer" and replace it with "settled science".

Happy?

No, I'm not "happy," Denial.

Be honest (try hard!) -- you're not interested in "moving the discussion along." Otherwise, this thread would be much, much shorter than it is.

Two questions, then, Denial:
(1) Will you define "settled science" without asking someone else to do it for you?

(2) Will you flip-flop back and forth again on who determines "settled science?" Here, you've used mutually-exclusive tactics; claiming that scientists determine it, then in the next breath posing yourself as the one who decides.

In order to do so, you mainly rely on the old smarmy creationist tactics of quotemining or pointing to dissenting voices in science -- no matter how far removed the "dissenting voice" is from actual research in the relevant field at this time. Finding isolated "dissenters" from mainstream science isn't hard, Denial. There are lots of scientists in the world and like any population, many of those will be incompetent, unhinged or simply bullshitting themselves. Your job, then, is to point to ANY competing models and show how they are *better* than evolutionary-based ones. You have failed to do this, and when pressed, you admit that you can't.

In the case of the aminosynthesis pathway you were given, you haven't been able to point to any competing models. I don't know of any. So, in the absence of  dissenting voices, your only option right now is to try to pose yourself as an "arbiter of valid science" again....which is exactly what you will try to do.

See, when I look for reasons *I* (and scientists actually in the relevant field) might be wrong, and I go to YOU or any other creationist to see how robust their competing models are...they offer nothing but handwaving that should shame any snake-oil salesman or con-artist.  

So, define your terms, Denial. Deny yourself your usual smarmy tactics and look for reasons that you might be wrong -- then be honest about it when you are wrong..  

Try it, it's refreshing.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,15:35   

[quote=Daniel Smith,April 26 2009,12:08]
Quote (JAM @ April 25 2009,15:22)
   
Quote (Henry J @ April 25 2009,14:01)

     
Quote
I don't know any reason why a the gene for a nonspecific enzyme couldn't accumulate changes that cause it to ignore all but one of the amino acids that are present in organisms of that species.

There isn't.

Please explain how a "non-specific enzyme" would work in any real system.

How about how such an enzyme actually does (not would) work in the system you specified?

Would that show you how idiotic you are being?

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,18:57   

Quote (deadman_932 @ April 26 2009,13:17)
 
Two questions, then, Denial:
(1) Will you define "settled science" without asking someone else to do it for you?

(2) Will you flip-flop back and forth again on who determines "settled science?" Here, you've used mutually-exclusive tactics; claiming that scientists determine it, then in the next breath posing yourself as the one who decides.


1. Settled science = A hypothesis that is finely detailed, extensively tested, empirically verified by each test, and agreed "settled" by the experts in the field.

An example of settled science would be the hypothesis that the Earth orbits the Sun.

2. Settled science is determined by consensus of the experts in the field - never by internet posers.

Now - all you have to do is show me a detailed natural evolutionary pathway that meets these two criteria.  Your aminosynthetic pathway does not qualify A) because it is a sketchy outline, and B) because you cannot show where the experts in the field have agreed - after extensive testing - that it is "settled science" to the same degree that it is settled that the Earth orbits the Sun.

--------------
"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: April 26 2009,18:59   

[quote=JAM,April 26 2009,13:35]  
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,12:08)
   
Quote (JAM @ April 25 2009,15:22)
       
Quote (Henry J @ April 25 2009,14:01)

         
Quote
I don't know any reason why a the gene for a nonspecific enzyme couldn't accumulate changes that cause it to ignore all but one of the amino acids that are present in organisms of that species.

There isn't.

Please explain how a "non-specific enzyme" would work in any real system.

How about how such an enzyme actually does (not would) work in the system you specified?

Please do.  That would be perfect.

--------------
"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: April 26 2009,19:01   

Quote (Henry J @ April 25 2009,13:01)
Even if there were some enzymes that did react with only one particular amino acid (is that what "specific" means here?),

By "specific" I meant specific as to the substrate they will accept and the catalytic reaction they will perform on that substrate.

--------------
"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: April 26 2009,19:06   

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 26 2009,11:49)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,13:08)
Please explain how a "non-specific enzyme" would work in any real system.

Denial, I'm pretty sure we need you to define "real" system.

But in case your definition includes things on this planet, we've been around this mulberry bush before, at least twice, or maybe three times. I forgot if these rotations were clockwise or counterclockwise, but apparently you aren't dizzy enough yet.

You really need to find a new gig; this one isn't working out for you at all, and it's getting really boring.

The first link takes me to a post where you cite this abstract and this paper but I'm not sure what your trying to say by citing these papers or how they are specifically relevant to what we are presently discussing.

The other two links just take me to JAM's post at the start of this thread - so again I'm not sure what your trying to say.

Why don't you just spell it out without being so cryptic?

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,19:57   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,18:57)
               
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 26 2009,13:17)
 
Two questions, then, Denial:
(1) Will you define "settled science" without asking someone else to do it for you?

(2) Will you flip-flop back and forth again on who determines "settled science?" Here, you've used mutually-exclusive tactics; claiming that scientists determine it, then in the next breath posing yourself as the one who decides.


1. Settled science = A hypothesis that is finely detailed, extensively tested, empirically verified by each test, and agreed "settled" by the experts in the field.

An example of settled science would be the hypothesis that the Earth orbits the Sun.

2. Settled science is determined by consensus of the experts in the field - never by internet posers.

Now - all you have to do is show me a detailed natural evolutionary pathway that meets these two criteria.  Your aminosynthetic pathway does not qualify A) because it is a sketchy outline, and B) because you cannot show where the experts in the field have agreed - after extensive testing - that it is "settled science" to the same degree that it is settled that the Earth orbits the Sun.

With your example of planetary orbits of the sun, you should have pointed to "origins" of that system...because it's there that your con-game is exposed. For example: is the ORIGIN of current planetary orbits "settled science,"  Denial? In all detail? Verifiably? Replicably? With consensus in the scientific community?

See, you're not just pointing to existing bio-genetic things and saying "I want to know a pathway for aminosynthesis." ....you're asking for the ORIGINS of that pathway.

You're using obvious fallacies (again!) in your con-game , Denial:

(1) You're trying to substitute a now-existing system (planetary orbits) for your actual previous request for the ORIGINS of a system ("show me how an aminosynthesis [or solar system] pathway evolved"). This is a "compositional fallacy." Or I could just call it a false analogy and leave it at that.
(2) With your example of planetary orbits, you're also using "begging the question" of such a system, because you're assuming facts not in evidence, like the ORIGINS of that system -- which is what you **REALLY** asked for about an evolutionary pathway. Try putting the EXACT same burdens of evidence on your own examples as you did on the examples of others, Denial. Don't try to substitute "existing " systems for "origins of" an existing system.

I could bother to point out how you're also employing a "cause and effect" fallacy, strawman,equivocation, etc.,  but I won't bother.

Now that you've dropped your other fake game of "final answers" in science, point to things in science that deal with what YOU actually asked for, Denial -- the ORIGINS of a system.

I want those examples to be as detailed as what your "definitional" criteria demands. Obviously you can find some that meet that level of " fine detail," testing, verification and agreed-upon acceptance. While you state just exactly, PRECISELY what criteria you use to determine EACH of those things.

See how easy it is to expose your con-game , Denial?

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,21:25   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,19:06)
Quote (Albatrossity2 @ April 26 2009,11:49)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,13:08)
Please explain how a "non-specific enzyme" would work in any real system.

Denial, I'm pretty sure we need you to define "real" system.

But in case your definition includes things on this planet, we've been around this mulberry bush before, at least twice, or maybe three times. I forgot if these rotations were clockwise or counterclockwise, but apparently you aren't dizzy enough yet.

You really need to find a new gig; this one isn't working out for you at all, and it's getting really boring.

The first link takes me to a post where you cite this abstract and this paper but I'm not sure what your trying to say by citing these papers or how they are specifically relevant to what we are presently discussing.

The other two links just take me to JAM's post at the start of this thread - so again I'm not sure what your trying to say.

Why don't you just spell it out without being so cryptic?

Is it "cryptic" to point you to papers where the authors deal with enzymes that have multiple activities, when you seem confused about the meaning of the word "specific" when it applies to enzymes?

Is this quote, from the first paper I cited, cryptic?  
Quote
Thermoanaerobacterium thermosulfurigenes cyclodextrin glucanotransferase primarily catalyses the formation of cyclic ?-(1,4)-linked oligosaccharides (cyclodextrins) from starch. This enzyme also possesses unusually high hydrolytic activity as a side reaction, thought to be due to partial retention of ancestral enzyme function.

Weren't you reading a biochemistry textbook once upon a time?

If you don't understand those abstracts, and why they are directly relevant to your problems with biochemical pathways, perhaps you should, as I suggested before, stop talking about stuff that you don't understand..

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,21:41   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,19:57)
Now - all you have to do is show me a detailed natural evolutionary pathway that meets these two criteria.  

Wup wup wup wup, whoa, boy. If you are serious about leaving it to scientists to determine what is settled science, you need to leave to them the determination of when sufficient detail to reach that settled status has been attained.

What we have here, otherwise, is a naked attempt to reserve for yourself a backdoor through which you can abscond by inserting your own judgment: "I asked for a detailed account. This isn't detailed enough."

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,22:43   

Rational person: -"I don't get this. What's wrong with me?"

Denial: -"I don't get this. What's wrong with it?"

I'm getting bored of this guy...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
JAM



Posts: 517
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 26 2009,23:54   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,17:59)

Please do.

1. acetohydroxy acid synthase (x 3 isozymes)
2. acetohydroxy acid isomeroreductase
3. dihydroxy acid dehydratase
4. multiple transaminases that use both isoleucine and valine as substrates
Quote
That would be perfect.

I don't believe you.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2009,11:24   

Quote (k.e.. @ April 26 2009,14:26)

Upanishads???????

*cough*...*choke*
(snip)

Sigh, guess you're right. Anyway, essentially, IMHO they don't say that much more than Monoimus, but I think they are great.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2009,18:46   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 26 2009,22:43)
Rational person: -"I don't get this. What's wrong with me?"

Denial: -"I don't get this. What's wrong with it?"

I'm getting bored of this guy...

yeah he is a boring old cunt

duh flud?

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2009,19:10   

Quote (JAM @ April 26 2009,21:54)
             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,17:59)

Please do.

1. acetohydroxy acid synthase (x 3 isozymes)
2. acetohydroxy acid isomeroreductase
3. dihydroxy acid dehydratase
4. multiple transaminases that use both isoleucine and valine as substrates

Thank you JAM for that.  I've only just begun to look at these enzymes but I am immediately struck by the fact that we have not defined terms here.

How do you define "specific" in a biological sense?

One of the many dictionary definitions of "specific" is "Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose."  This is more in line with the meaning I have in mind.  It doesn't necessarily mean "exclusive", although those are related terms.  An enzyme becomes more specific as more substrates, reactions and products are excluded.   It also doesn't mean "unique".  Specificity is relative not absolute.  One of the abstracts I looked at has even defined a "specificity ratio" for the three isozymes you mentioned.

What "specific" means to me is the level to which an enzyme is ideally suited for the job it does.  If it is limited to one substrate and one product, then I'd call it "highly specific".  If it will accept a limited amount of substrates or produces a limited amount of products, it is just "specific".  If it will accept a wide range of substrates or will produce a wide range of products, it would be "non-specific".  

I don't see where the enzymes you cited are non-specific in that sense.  For instance the three isozymes of acetohydroxy acid synthase--as near as I can tell--are limited to two substrates and two products each, thus meeting my definition of "specific".  What's more, they complement each other, with one being more effective at producing acetolactate when pyruvate levels are low, thus enabling a bacterium to cope with poor carbon sources.  So they vary in their specificity for both product and substrate.

But all of this is moot if we don't agree on the definition of "specific".  So again JAM, how do you define "specific"?

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2009,19:23   

Yo, you're not doing science when you're saying that terms in science have to meet your idiosyncratic definitions, Denial.

What you're doing has a name --  It's called apologetics.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2009,20:34   

Quote
One of the many dictionary definitions of "specific" is "Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose."  


like my hand just fits....

a chicken just fits...

the moon lander just fit...

you can't get past your presuppositions can you Denial

sad, really.  kinda like trading guitar licks with the out of place tuba player at a fiddlers convention.*

*not always a crappy job.  some tuba players fit in well.  you sir, on the other gland, are tits on a spark plug wrench

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 27 2009,21:14   

It might also be moot if there's not really a specific point to the specific argument.

Given my limited understanding of the subject, I'd expect a useful enzyme to evolve to be more specific if that makes it more useful to the species, up to the point at which more specificity would cost more than it's worth.

Henry

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2009,05:38   

I'm still waiting for an answer about the mechanism of the Diels-Alder reaction, step by step, electron by electron. Surely Denial knows this is possible, right?

I love the fact that Denial's ignorant fingers continually write claims his "brain" can't back up.

Diels-Alder mechanism or GTFO (ok so it's not as fun as ERV'S "tits or GTFO" but I've seen enough tits today).

Louis

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2009,06:25   

Quote (Louis @ April 28 2009,05:38)
I'm still waiting for an answer about the mechanism of the Diels-Alder reaction, step by step, electron by electron. Surely Denial knows this is possible, right?

I love the fact that Denial's ignorant fingers continually write claims his "brain" can't back up.

Diels-Alder mechanism or GTFO (ok so it's not as fun as ERV'S "tits or GTFO" but I've seen enough tits today).

Louis

what?

just as i thought.  your wrist, sir, is limp.

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

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

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

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2009,07:39   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 28 2009,12:25)
Quote (Louis @ April 28 2009,05:38)
I'm still waiting for an answer about the mechanism of the Diels-Alder reaction, step by step, electron by electron. Surely Denial knows this is possible, right?

I love the fact that Denial's ignorant fingers continually write claims his "brain" can't back up.

Diels-Alder mechanism or GTFO (ok so it's not as fun as ERV'S "tits or GTFO" but I've seen enough tits today).

Louis

what?

just as i thought.  your wrist, sir, is limp.

Not at all, you have no idea just how many tits I have seen today, or how little I want to see Denial's tits.

Louis

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

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2009,07:45   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ April 26 2009,21:41)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,19:57)
Now - all you have to do is show me a detailed natural evolutionary pathway that meets these two criteria.  

Wup wup wup wup, whoa, boy. If you are serious about leaving it to scientists to determine what is settled science, you need to leave to them the determination of when sufficient detail to reach that settled status has been attained.

What we have here, otherwise, is a naked attempt to reserve for yourself a backdoor through which you can abscond by inserting your own judgment: "I asked for a detailed account. This isn't detailed enough."

Isn't that called the Behe Bitch?

"It just ain't detailed enough for me"

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2009,07:47   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 27 2009,19:10)
Quote (JAM @ April 26 2009,21:54)
             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,17:59)

Please do.

1. acetohydroxy acid synthase (x 3 isozymes)
2. acetohydroxy acid isomeroreductase
3. dihydroxy acid dehydratase
4. multiple transaminases that use both isoleucine and valine as substrates

Thank you JAM for that.  I've only just begun to look at these enzymes but I am immediately struck by the fact that we have not defined terms here.

How do you define "specific" in a biological sense?

One of the many dictionary definitions of "specific" is "Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose."  This is more in line with the meaning I have in mind.  It doesn't necessarily mean "exclusive", although those are related terms.  An enzyme becomes more specific as more substrates, reactions and products are excluded.   It also doesn't mean "unique".  Specificity is relative not absolute.  One of the abstracts I looked at has even defined a "specificity ratio" for the three isozymes you mentioned.

What "specific" means to me is the level to which an enzyme is ideally suited for the job it does.  If it is limited to one substrate and one product, then I'd call it "highly specific".  If it will accept a limited amount of substrates or produces a limited amount of products, it is just "specific".  If it will accept a wide range of substrates or will produce a wide range of products, it would be "non-specific".  

I don't see where the enzymes you cited are non-specific in that sense.  For instance the three isozymes of acetohydroxy acid synthase--as near as I can tell--are limited to two substrates and two products each, thus meeting my definition of "specific".  What's more, they complement each other, with one being more effective at producing acetolactate when pyruvate levels are low, thus enabling a bacterium to cope with poor carbon sources.  So they vary in their specificity for both product and substrate.

But all of this is moot if we don't agree on the definition of "specific".  So again JAM, how do you define "specific"?

Just go ahead and define it any way you want since you'll change the definition in a few posts.

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2009,07:50   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 27 2009,19:10)
Quote (JAM @ April 26 2009,21:54)
             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,17:59)

Please do.

1. acetohydroxy acid synthase (x 3 isozymes)
2. acetohydroxy acid isomeroreductase
3. dihydroxy acid dehydratase
4. multiple transaminases that use both isoleucine and valine as substrates

Thank you JAM for that.  I've only just begun to look at these enzymes but I am immediately struck by the fact that we have not defined terms here.

How do you define "specific" in a biological sense?

One of the many dictionary definitions of "specific" is "Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose."  This is more in line with the meaning I have in mind.  It doesn't necessarily mean "exclusive", although those are related terms.  An enzyme becomes more specific as more substrates, reactions and products are excluded.   It also doesn't mean "unique".  Specificity is relative not absolute.  One of the abstracts I looked at has even defined a "specificity ratio" for the three isozymes you mentioned.

What "specific" means to me is the level to which an enzyme is ideally suited for the job it does.  If it is limited to one substrate and one product, then I'd call it "highly specific".  If it will accept a limited amount of substrates or produces a limited amount of products, it is just "specific".  If it will accept a wide range of substrates or will produce a wide range of products, it would be "non-specific".  

I don't see where the enzymes you cited are non-specific in that sense.  For instance the three isozymes of acetohydroxy acid synthase--as near as I can tell--are limited to two substrates and two products each, thus meeting my definition of "specific".  What's more, they complement each other, with one being more effective at producing acetolactate when pyruvate levels are low, thus enabling a bacterium to cope with poor carbon sources.  So they vary in their specificity for both product and substrate.

But all of this is moot if we don't agree on the definition of "specific".  So again JAM, how do you define "specific"?

You say you were struck with a fact. I don't think you've ever got that close to one and if you did you could dodge it with ease.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2009,08:07   

Quote (Louis @ April 28 2009,07:39)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 28 2009,12:25)
 
Quote (Louis @ April 28 2009,05:38)
I'm still waiting for an answer about the mechanism of the Diels-Alder reaction, step by step, electron by electron. Surely Denial knows this is possible, right?

I love the fact that Denial's ignorant fingers continually write claims his "brain" can't back up.

Diels-Alder mechanism or GTFO (ok so it's not as fun as ERV'S "tits or GTFO" but I've seen enough tits today).

Louis

what?

just as i thought.  your wrist, sir, is limp.

Not at all, you have no idea just how many tits I have seen today, or how little I want to see Denial's tits.

Louis

do tell.  how many, exactly, is too many tits?  does one reach that threshold asymptotically?  I do not believe you sir.

anything is better than "Oh yeah well what about that OTHER electron" happy horseshit godbotting witness ministry that Denial has working here.

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

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

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

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2009,10:56   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ April 28 2009,14:07)
Quote (Louis @ April 28 2009,07:39)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,April 28 2009,12:25)
 
Quote (Louis @ April 28 2009,05:38)
I'm still waiting for an answer about the mechanism of the Diels-Alder reaction, step by step, electron by electron. Surely Denial knows this is possible, right?

I love the fact that Denial's ignorant fingers continually write claims his "brain" can't back up.

Diels-Alder mechanism or GTFO (ok so it's not as fun as ERV'S "tits or GTFO" but I've seen enough tits today).

Louis

what?

just as i thought.  your wrist, sir, is limp.

Not at all, you have no idea just how many tits I have seen today, or how little I want to see Denial's tits.

Louis

do tell.  how many, exactly, is too many tits?  does one reach that threshold asymptotically?  I do not believe you sir.

anything is better than "Oh yeah well what about that OTHER electron" happy horseshit godbotting witness ministry that Denial has working here.

Typical of you Darwinistatheistcommieliberalfacistjesushaters. I never said "too many tits" I said "enough tits". One can, of course, never have too many tits, but one can reach tit saturation where one has encountered a sufficient quantity of tits that adding more tits to the mix would be undetectable from the huge quantity of tits one has already encountered.

Anyway, do you REALLY want to see Denial's tits more than seeing him flannel about on yet another subject the ignorant pissant knows nothing about?* Think carefully about your answer.

Louis

*Mind you it would be a change from his incessant circling of the Mulberry Bush.

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4402
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2009,13:14   

Quote (Louis @ April 28 2009,10:56)
*Mind you it would be a change from his incessant circling of the Mulberry Bush.

Oh?  Is that what we're calling it now?

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2009,14:20   

Quote (J-Dog @ April 28 2009,19:14)
Quote (Louis @ April 28 2009,10:56)
*Mind you it would be a change from his incessant circling of the Mulberry Bush.

Oh?  Is that what we're calling it now?

When we're feeling polite, yes.

Louis

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2009,17:52   

Quote (deadman_932 @ April 27 2009,17:23)
Yo, you're not doing science when you're saying that terms in science have to meet your idiosyncratic definitions, Denial.

What you're doing has a name --  It's called apologetics.

What's the scientific definition of "specific" as it relates to enzymes then?

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2009,18:10   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 28 2009,17:52)
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 27 2009,17:23)
Yo, you're not doing science when you're saying that terms in science have to meet your idiosyncratic definitions, Denial.

What you're doing has a name --  It's called apologetics.

What's the scientific definition of "specific" as it relates to enzymes then?

who cares?

we're discussing your wish fulfillment delusion.  let's not bother that with details shall we?  esp those pathetic little details.

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2009,19:42   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 29 2009,00:52)
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 27 2009,17:23)
Yo, you're not doing science when you're saying that terms in science have to meet your idiosyncratic definitions, Denial.

What you're doing has a name --  It's called apologetics.

What's the scientific definition of "specific" as it relates to enzymes then?

Make the gene pool a favor and go play on the highway...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 28 2009,20:00   

.
You still need to give a detailed, coherent response to this post first, Denial (not that I expect anything but your usual fraud) :


Quote (deadman_932 @ April 26 2009,19:57)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,18:57)
                 
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 26 2009,13:17)
 
Two questions, then, Denial:
(1) Will you define "settled science" without asking someone else to do it for you?

(2) Will you flip-flop back and forth again on who determines "settled science?" Here, you've used mutually-exclusive tactics; claiming that scientists determine it, then in the next breath posing yourself as the one who decides.


1. Settled science = A hypothesis that is finely detailed, extensively tested, empirically verified by each test, and agreed "settled" by the experts in the field.

An example of settled science would be the hypothesis that the Earth orbits the Sun.

2. Settled science is determined by consensus of the experts in the field - never by internet posers.

Now - all you have to do is show me a detailed natural evolutionary pathway that meets these two criteria.  Your aminosynthetic pathway does not qualify A) because it is a sketchy outline, and B) because you cannot show where the experts in the field have agreed - after extensive testing - that it is "settled science" to the same degree that it is settled that the Earth orbits the Sun.

With your example of planetary orbits of the sun, you should have pointed to "origins" of that system...because it's there that your con-game is exposed. For example: is the ORIGIN of current planetary orbits "settled science,"  Denial? In all detail? Verifiably? Replicably? With consensus in the scientific community?

See, you're not just pointing to existing bio-genetic things and saying "I want to know a pathway for aminosynthesis." ....you're asking for the ORIGINS of that pathway.

You're using obvious fallacies (again!) in your con-game , Denial:

(1) You're trying to substitute a now-existing system (planetary orbits) for your actual previous request for the ORIGINS of a system ("show me how an aminosynthesis [or solar system] pathway evolved"). This is a "compositional fallacy." Or I could just call it a false analogy and leave it at that.
(2) With your example of planetary orbits, you're also using "begging the question" of such a system, because you're assuming facts not in evidence, like the ORIGINS of that system -- which is what you **REALLY** asked for about an evolutionary pathway. Try putting the EXACT same burdens of evidence on your own examples as you did on the examples of others, Denial. Don't try to substitute "existing " systems for "origins of" an existing system.

I could bother to point out how you're also employing a "cause and effect" fallacy, strawman,equivocation, etc.,  but I won't bother.

Now that you've dropped your other fake game of "final answers" in science, point to things in science that deal with what YOU actually asked for, Denial -- the ORIGINS of a system.

I want those examples to be as detailed as what your "definitional" criteria demands. Obviously you can find some that meet that level of " fine detail," testing, verification and agreed-upon acceptance. While you state just exactly, PRECISELY what criteria you use to determine EACH of those things.

See how easy it is to expose your con-game , Denial?


When you answer this to my satisfaction, I might respond to your request, Denial.

But my guess is that you simply lack the personal honor or ethics ("christian" or otherwise) to do so in any significant way.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2009,03:54   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 29 2009,01:42)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 29 2009,00:52)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 27 2009,17:23)
Yo, you're not doing science when you're saying that terms in science have to meet your idiosyncratic definitions, Denial.

What you're doing has a name --  It's called apologetics.

What's the scientific definition of "specific" as it relates to enzymes then?

Make the gene pool a favor and go play on the highway...

Oh now that's more than a little harsh. Comedy hyperbolic requests for Denial to make himself dead or maimed are not really needed. Can't we just settle for mild abuse and frequent demands for basic intellectual honesty and rigour?

Denial is hardly significant enough to want dead, all that could really be asked of him is to become honest and rational. And of course to demonstrate that the contention that it is impossible for him to prove he is not a child molester is false..... ;-)

Louis

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2009,04:38   

Quote (Louis @ April 29 2009,10:54)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 29 2009,01:42)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 29 2009,00:52)
 
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 27 2009,17:23)
Yo, you're not doing science when you're saying that terms in science have to meet your idiosyncratic definitions, Denial.

What you're doing has a name --  It's called apologetics.

What's the scientific definition of "specific" as it relates to enzymes then?

Make the gene pool a favor and go play on the highway...

Oh now that's more than a little harsh. Comedy hyperbolic requests for Denial to make himself dead or maimed are not really needed. Can't we just settle for mild abuse and frequent demands for basic intellectual honesty and rigour?

Denial is hardly significant enough to want dead, all that could really be asked of him is to become honest and rational. And of course to demonstrate that the contention that it is impossible for him to prove he is not a child molester is false..... ;-)

Louis

Ok, my bad.

Lets have him get his epiphany on the highway, then...

There, nicer?  :D

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2009,05:54   

like the apostle paul?

or johnathan wells

he he he he

i'd be satisfied if he would just admit that he can't prove he is not a kiddy diddler.  what louis sees as mulberry bush circuitry (I see as really really kinky gay flirtiness) might end immediately.

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2009,11:08   

Quote
all that could really be asked of him is to become honest and rational.

Gotta view the situation from his position; we might just as well ask him to grow a third arm.

I don’t know, maybe I should feel sorry for him. While evolution by now is settled science(TM Daniel Smith), he now has dug himself so deep into his hole, i.e. Hell, that I am afraid the chances of escape are very small.

Doubts about faith have the very unsettling property of returning every time one thinks one has escaped a particular demon. In this case, the demon is identifiable as God-of-the-gaps.
   
Quote
Luke 024:045 Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures,

I don't think anything short of a guru can help him.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 29 2009,11:46   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 29 2009,10:38)
Quote (Louis @ April 29 2009,10:54)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ April 29 2009,01:42)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 29 2009,00:52)
   
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 27 2009,17:23)
Yo, you're not doing science when you're saying that terms in science have to meet your idiosyncratic definitions, Denial.

What you're doing has a name --  It's called apologetics.

What's the scientific definition of "specific" as it relates to enzymes then?

Make the gene pool a favor and go play on the highway...

Oh now that's more than a little harsh. Comedy hyperbolic requests for Denial to make himself dead or maimed are not really needed. Can't we just settle for mild abuse and frequent demands for basic intellectual honesty and rigour?

Denial is hardly significant enough to want dead, all that could really be asked of him is to become honest and rational. And of course to demonstrate that the contention that it is impossible for him to prove he is not a child molester is false..... ;-)

Louis

Ok, my bad.

Lets have him get his epiphany on the highway, then...

There, nicer?  :D

Epiphany on the highway? Seems fair. Just to be safe, let's make it not rush hour!

;-)

Louis

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2009,10:35   

Quote (deadman_932 @ April 28 2009,18:00)
.
You still need to give a detailed, coherent response to this post first, Denial (not that I expect anything but your usual fraud) :


   
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 26 2009,19:57)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,18:57)
                     
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 26 2009,13:17)
 
Two questions, then, Denial:
(1) Will you define "settled science" without asking someone else to do it for you?

(2) Will you flip-flop back and forth again on who determines "settled science?" Here, you've used mutually-exclusive tactics; claiming that scientists determine it, then in the next breath posing yourself as the one who decides.


1. Settled science = A hypothesis that is finely detailed, extensively tested, empirically verified by each test, and agreed "settled" by the experts in the field.

An example of settled science would be the hypothesis that the Earth orbits the Sun.

2. Settled science is determined by consensus of the experts in the field - never by internet posers.

Now - all you have to do is show me a detailed natural evolutionary pathway that meets these two criteria.  Your aminosynthetic pathway does not qualify A) because it is a sketchy outline, and B) because you cannot show where the experts in the field have agreed - after extensive testing - that it is "settled science" to the same degree that it is settled that the Earth orbits the Sun.

With your example of planetary orbits of the sun, you should have pointed to "origins" of that system...because it's there that your con-game is exposed. For example: is the ORIGIN of current planetary orbits "settled science,"  Denial? In all detail? Verifiably? Replicably? With consensus in the scientific community?

See, you're not just pointing to existing bio-genetic things and saying "I want to know a pathway for aminosynthesis." ....you're asking for the ORIGINS of that pathway.

You're using obvious fallacies (again!) in your con-game , Denial:

(1) You're trying to substitute a now-existing system (planetary orbits) for your actual previous request for the ORIGINS of a system ("show me how an aminosynthesis [or solar system] pathway evolved"). This is a "compositional fallacy." Or I could just call it a false analogy and leave it at that.
(2) With your example of planetary orbits, you're also using "begging the question" of such a system, because you're assuming facts not in evidence, like the ORIGINS of that system -- which is what you **REALLY** asked for about an evolutionary pathway. Try putting the EXACT same burdens of evidence on your own examples as you did on the examples of others, Denial. Don't try to substitute "existing " systems for "origins of" an existing system.

I could bother to point out how you're also employing a "cause and effect" fallacy, strawman,equivocation, etc.,  but I won't bother.

Now that you've dropped your other fake game of "final answers" in science, point to things in science that deal with what YOU actually asked for, Denial -- the ORIGINS of a system.

I want those examples to be as detailed as what your "definitional" criteria demands. Obviously you can find some that meet that level of " fine detail," testing, verification and agreed-upon acceptance. While you state just exactly, PRECISELY what criteria you use to determine EACH of those things.

See how easy it is to expose your con-game , Denial?


When you answer this to my satisfaction, I might respond to your request, Denial.

But my guess is that you simply lack the personal honor or ethics ("christian" or otherwise) to do so in any significant way.

My original argument states:  
Quote
if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means.

This applies to the solar system as well.

Your admission that detailed origins for planetary orbits are unattainable enhances my argument.

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2009,11:10   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 30 2009,08:35)
My original argument states:    
Quote
if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means.

This applies to the solar system as well.

Your admission that detailed origins for planetary orbits are unattainable enhances my argument.

In the sense in which deadman is using "detailed" (In all detail? Verifiably? Replicably?): A detailed description of my bike ride to work is not available.  Therefore God created my commute.

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

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2009,11:21   

Quote (JohnW @ April 30 2009,17:10)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 30 2009,08:35)
My original argument states:    
Quote
if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means.

This applies to the solar system as well.

Your admission that detailed origins for planetary orbits are unattainable enhances my argument.

In the sense in which deadman is using "detailed" (In all detail? Verifiably? Replicably?): A detailed description of my bike ride to work is not available.  Therefore God created my commute.

And my route home from the pub.

Louis

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2009,11:27   

Quote (Louis @ April 30 2009,09:21)
Quote (JohnW @ April 30 2009,17:10)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 30 2009,08:35)
My original argument states:      
Quote
if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means.

This applies to the solar system as well.

Your admission that detailed origins for planetary orbits are unattainable enhances my argument.

In the sense in which deadman is using "detailed" (In all detail? Verifiably? Replicably?): A detailed description of my bike ride to work is not available.  Therefore God created my commute.

And my route home from the pub.

Louis

You got home?  A miracle!

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

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2009,12:11   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 30 2009,10:35)
         
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 28 2009,18:00)
.
You still need to give a detailed, coherent response to this post first, Denial (not that I expect anything but your usual fraud) :


               
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 26 2009,19:57)
               
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,18:57)
                                 
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 26 2009,13:17)
 
Two questions, then, Denial:
(1) Will you define "settled science" without asking someone else to do it for you?

(2) Will you flip-flop back and forth again on who determines "settled science?" Here, you've used mutually-exclusive tactics; claiming that scientists determine it, then in the next breath posing yourself as the one who decides.


1. Settled science = A hypothesis that is finely detailed, extensively tested, empirically verified by each test, and agreed "settled" by the experts in the field.

An example of settled science would be the hypothesis that the Earth orbits the Sun.

2. Settled science is determined by consensus of the experts in the field - never by internet posers.

Now - all you have to do is show me a detailed natural evolutionary pathway that meets these two criteria.  Your aminosynthetic pathway does not qualify A) because it is a sketchy outline, and B) because you cannot show where the experts in the field have agreed - after extensive testing - that it is "settled science" to the same degree that it is settled that the Earth orbits the Sun.

With your example of planetary orbits of the sun, you should have pointed to "origins" of that system...because it's there that your con-game is exposed. For example: is the ORIGIN of current planetary orbits "settled science,"  Denial? In all detail? Verifiably? Replicably? With consensus in the scientific community?

See, you're not just pointing to existing bio-genetic things and saying "I want to know a pathway for aminosynthesis." ....you're asking for the ORIGINS of that pathway.

You're using obvious fallacies (again!) in your con-game , Denial:

(1) You're trying to substitute a now-existing system (planetary orbits) for your actual previous request for the ORIGINS of a system ("show me how an aminosynthesis [or solar system] pathway evolved"). This is a "compositional fallacy." Or I could just call it a false analogy and leave it at that.
(2) With your example of planetary orbits, you're also using "begging the question" of such a system, because you're assuming facts not in evidence, like the ORIGINS of that system -- which is what you **REALLY** asked for about an evolutionary pathway. Try putting the EXACT same burdens of evidence on your own examples as you did on the examples of others, Denial. Don't try to substitute "existing " systems for "origins of" an existing system.

I could bother to point out how you're also employing a "cause and effect" fallacy, strawman,equivocation, etc.,  but I won't bother.

Now that you've dropped your other fake game of "final answers" in science, point to things in science that deal with what YOU actually asked for, Denial -- the ORIGINS of a system.

I want those examples to be as detailed as what your "definitional" criteria demands. Obviously you can find some that meet that level of " fine detail," testing, verification and agreed-upon acceptance. While you state just exactly, PRECISELY what criteria you use to determine EACH of those things.

See how easy it is to expose your con-game , Denial?


When you answer this to my satisfaction, I might respond to your request, Denial.

But my guess is that you simply lack the personal honor or ethics ("christian" or otherwise) to do so in any significant way.

My original argument states:              
Quote
if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means.

This applies to the solar system as well.

Your admission that detailed origins for planetary orbits are unattainable enhances my argument.

1. I didn't say that sufficiently-detailed evidence regarding the origins of planetary orbits (to satisfy anyone but the most lunatic creationist like yourself) is "unattainable." We are continuing to gather this data today.

2. Me pointing out your fallacious substitution of "current" planets orbiting the sun vs. your actual demand to see origins of phenomenon...had absolutely no effect on you. Not even an apology for your blatant attempt at your usual low-level trickery. This isn't a good sign at all, Denial. Your personal expectations for your own ethics has sunk to new depths.

3. My point was quite clear, as were my repeated requests for specifics of how you evaluate evidence regarding " fine detail," testing, verification and agreed-upon acceptance. You didn't bother with that, either.

4.
(a) You asked for an aminosynthesis pathway, because you say evolution can't account for the origins of such a pathway.
(b) You were given that.
( c) You say it's not good enough for you (though you also say it's scientists who judge that) because it's not detailed enough as a "final answer."
(d) I point out that science doesn't deal with final answers, but for fun, I ask you to point to one.
(e) You concede that science doesn't deal in immutable "final answers" but you point to planetary orbits as example of something "settled" ; agreed-on in all details, etc. by the scientific community.
(f) I point out (among other things) that your attempt to use the example of planetary orbits around the sun isn't the same as  asking for the origins of such a system. Also, I could have mentioned that this "settled" knowledge could change tomorrow -- therefore it's not immutably settled. That's the way science is, due to the limits of induction --
(g) You seize on this and cry, "See?!?!111one! You can't know the origins of things in detail that satisfies my criteria, even if I say it's scientists who are to judge the validity of scientific claims, and no, I won't specify what criteria I use!!Bwahaha!! Therefore God exists!! "

Want me to list the fallacies you're employing now, Denial? The list is large.

Luckily, most of this can all be boiled down to the same infinite regress that I and others pointed out many times before -- All you have "discovered" is that Denial can reduce any phenomenon down to component parts and theoretically continue to ask indefinitely  "but where did that come from?" -- and declare "victory" when an honest respondent eventually has to answer "well, we can't say at this time."

Hell, I could use your "method" to "prove" elves, too, if the "proof" is only contingent on someone saying "well, we don't know where the north pole 'comes from' "

For you that means "God." but for others -- more honest folks -- that simply means "God of the Gaps".

By the way, I have to marvel at the sheer dishonest duplicity of offering up planetary orbits as an example of  "settled" science....and then your willingness to say "but I win if it's NOT "settled" science , even if **I** use it for an example of settled science, myself." Heads you win, tails everyone else loses? My. Even when YOU cite the example?

Does this sort of low-level fallacy-mongering work among your churchy brethren? One has to wonder why you keep trying it, even when you keep getting exposed  using it.

To summarize: You still haven't pointed to anything that is deemed "settled science" regarding origins, because that's where you find the gaps to stick your god in when He isn't in the mirror. Nor have you cast any light on the criteria by which you evaluate evidence. It's put up or shut up tiime, Denial.

Try being honest and saying "well, the truth is that my criteria are only based on finding a point at which scientists say 'we don't know' and then I swoop in and prop my God up there."

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2009,13:28   

If you believe in the flood, Denial, then presumably you have a atom by atom breakdown of how it happened?

If not, why do you believe in it yet disbelieve in things which are far far more supported by evidence?

Oh, right.....

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2009,13:40   

Quote (JohnW @ April 30 2009,17:27)
Quote (Louis @ April 30 2009,09:21)
Quote (JohnW @ April 30 2009,17:10)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 30 2009,08:35)
My original argument states:      
Quote
if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means.

This applies to the solar system as well.

Your admission that detailed origins for planetary orbits are unattainable enhances my argument.

In the sense in which deadman is using "detailed" (In all detail? Verifiably? Replicably?): A detailed description of my bike ride to work is not available.  Therefore God created my commute.

And my route home from the pub.

Louis

You got home?  A miracle!

A very rare occurrence indeed. The gutters and park benches of my locale are dented by my frequent use of them as places to have an impromptu nap, just to recuperate you understand, as I wind my merry way twixt domicile and boozer.

Louis

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2009,15:01   

Quote
All you have "discovered" is that Denial can reduce any phenomenon down to component parts and theoretically continue to ask indefinitely  "but where did that come from?" -- and declare "victory" when an honest respondent eventually has to answer "well, we can't say at this time."

Hell, I could use your "method" to "prove" elves, too, if the "proof" is only contingent on someone saying "well, we don't know where the north pole 'comes from' "


write that down.

he's fascinating really.  but seeing it in action means playing along.  and that is boring.  i just wish he would try this method out on the flood, just for gits and shiggles.

its that intellectual cowardice that draws my ire.

hey louis do some more of that funny brit talking stuff thats great your merry way betwixt and all that sutff.  i swear that this thread ain't going nowhere else.

In Which Assumptions Are Facts

rofl

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2009,16:25   

Quote
...I wind my merry way...
That's wend, I think.</nitpick>

Hi Dan.

I'd ask what's the point, but...

What's the point?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2009,17:16   

Quote (Alan Fox @ April 30 2009,22:25)
Quote
...I wind my merry way...
That's wend, I think.</nitpick>

Hi Dan.

I'd ask what's the point, but...

What's the point?

You're right of course, it *should* be "wend". However, in my case "wind" is strangely apt...especially after a kebab.

Louis

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 30 2009,17:22   

Quote (Louis @ April 30 2009,12:16)
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 30 2009,22:25)
Quote
...I wind my merry way...
That's wend, I think.</nitpick>

Hi Dan.

I'd ask what's the point, but...

What's the point?

You're right of course, it *should* be "wend". However, in my case "wind" is strangely apt...especially after a kebab.

Louis

Marmite, Marston's Pedigree and Doner Kebabs! Three things that will never penetrate French culture.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2009,03:04   

Quote (Alan Fox @ April 30 2009,23:22)
Quote (Louis @ April 30 2009,12:16)
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 30 2009,22:25)
 
Quote
...I wind my merry way...
That's wend, I think.</nitpick>

Hi Dan.

I'd ask what's the point, but...

What's the point?

You're right of course, it *should* be "wend". However, in my case "wind" is strangely apt...especially after a kebab.

Louis

Marmite, Marston's Pedigree and Doner Kebabs! Three things that will never penetrate French culture.

Marston's is the only one they should be glad won't penetrate. A highly overrated beer IMO.

Ahhhh French culture.....I envy you Alan, I miss France. IIRC you are an English scientist who has upped sticks and moved to France. The beloved wife and I have been considering this same move, any advice for potential movers?

Louis

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

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2009,03:37   

Quote
Ahhhh French culture.....I envy you Alan, I miss France. IIRC you are an English scientist who has upped sticks and moved to France. The beloved wife and I have been considering this same move, any advice for potential movers?
Wait till you can retire, because the bureaucracy is a nightmare if you want to work independently. Save in euros, and get a French mistress, preferably one who works for the government or the local mayor. Your wife will also need a French lover, the mayor obviously being the ideal choice. BTW my career in biochemistry never took off. I ended up doing a few different things, even worked for "Beneficial" for a spell, years ago!

Marston's was a great pint, but needed expert handling. The White Horse at Broughton Astley served it to perfection back in the 70's. I don't know if they still use the Burton Union System, as they did then. Probably not.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2009,04:13   

I agree with Alan, on the France stuff.

Weird enough, I actually like Marmite! And backed beans for breakfast...

With a cold beer...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2009,10:19   

it is worhty of note that marmite functions excellently as a substitute for grout, in addition to possessing the culinary qualities currently being extolled by these gents who prefer boiled meat and boiled parsnips

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

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

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

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2009,10:32   

Thanks Alan and Schroedinger's Dog.

I've heard tales of the bureaucracy, usually told in hushed tones around a fire or some such thing. Is it really so tough for young (ish) scientists?

And as for marmite, it's a well known aphrodisiac...allegedly.

Louis

P.S. Ahhh the Burton Union System. I will concede I damned Marstons too fast. I agree if properly kept and dispensed it is not utterly horrendous. But since even Wethrspoons are getting Cask Marque awards nowadays it is very VERY hard to find a reliable pub without joining CAMRA.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2009,10:49   

Quote (Louis @ April 30 2009,21:40)
Quote (JohnW @ April 30 2009,17:27)
Quote (Louis @ April 30 2009,09:21)
 
Quote (JohnW @ April 30 2009,17:10)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 30 2009,08:35)
My original argument states:        
Quote
if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means.

This applies to the solar system as well.

Your admission that detailed origins for planetary orbits are unattainable enhances my argument.

In the sense in which deadman is using "detailed" (In all detail? Verifiably? Replicably?): A detailed description of my bike ride to work is not available.  Therefore God created my commute.

And my route home from the pub.

Louis

You got home?  A miracle!

A very rare occurrence indeed. The gutters and park benches of my locale are dented by my frequent use of them as places to have an impromptu nap, just to recuperate you understand, as I wind my merry way twixt domicile and boozer.

Louis

Indeed brownian motion was probably involved in OOL but in Louis' case the experiment may have only produced cold curry.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2009,10:56   

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 01 2009,11:37)
Quote
Ahhhh French culture.....I envy you Alan, I miss France. IIRC you are an English scientist who has upped sticks and moved to France. The beloved wife and I have been considering this same move, any advice for potential movers?
Wait till you can retire, because the bureaucracy is a nightmare if you want to work independently. Save in euros, and get a French mistress, preferably one who works for the government or the local mayor. Your wife will also need a French lover, the mayor obviously being the ideal choice. BTW my career in biochemistry never took off. I ended up doing a few different things, even worked for "Beneficial" for a spell, years ago!

Marston's was a great pint, but needed expert handling. The White Horse at Broughton Astley served it to perfection back in the 70's. I don't know if they still use the Burton Union System, as they did then. Probably not.

Do tell!

Does you wife visit from blighty?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2009,14:01   

Quote
Is it really so tough for young (ish) scientists?
Montpellier and Toulouse are both university cities with a lively, young feel to them, plenty of cultural stuff going on. Regarding openings for scientists, Jeannot would be your man, but I don't know if he still visits this board.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2009,14:04   

Quote
Does you wife visit from blighty?

No, she lives here with me. And watches me like a hawk, which she doesn't need to of course. Though she is off to  Morocco for a couple of weeks or so, tomorrow...

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2009,17:38   

Regarding openings in the scientific field, there's been a massive brains leakage to better horizons these past few years, due to drastic cuts in the science budget. There was a glimpse of sunshine during Claudie Haigneré's office as minister of Sciences, but it's all gone down the drain even since.

Shame, they had the one person who understood what was at stakes in science...

Anyway, avoid at all cost until further government changes.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 01 2009,19:13   

Quote (deadman_932 @ April 30 2009,10:11)
           
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 30 2009,10:35)
                     
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 28 2009,18:00)
.
You still need to give a detailed, coherent response to this post first, Denial (not that I expect anything but your usual fraud) :


                           
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 26 2009,19:57)
                             
Quote (Daniel Smith @ April 26 2009,18:57)
                                             
Quote (deadman_932 @ April 26 2009,13:17)
 
Two questions, then, Denial:
(1) Will you define "settled science" without asking someone else to do it for you?

(2) Will you flip-flop back and forth again on who determines "settled science?" Here, you've used mutually-exclusive tactics; claiming that scientists determine it, then in the next breath posing yourself as the one who decides.


1. Settled science = A hypothesis that is finely detailed, extensively tested, empirically verified by each test, and agreed "settled" by the experts in the field.

An example of settled science would be the hypothesis that the Earth orbits the Sun.

2. Settled science is determined by consensus of the experts in the field - never by internet posers.

Now - all you have to do is show me a detailed natural evolutionary pathway that meets these two criteria.  Your aminosynthetic pathway does not qualify A) because it is a sketchy outline, and B) because you cannot show where the experts in the field have agreed - after extensive testing - that it is "settled science" to the same degree that it is settled that the Earth orbits the Sun.

With your example of planetary orbits of the sun, you should have pointed to "origins" of that system...because it's there that your con-game is exposed. For example: is the ORIGIN of current planetary orbits "settled science,"  Denial? In all detail? Verifiably? Replicably? With consensus in the scientific community?

See, you're not just pointing to existing bio-genetic things and saying "I want to know a pathway for aminosynthesis." ....you're asking for the ORIGINS of that pathway.

You're using obvious fallacies (again!) in your con-game , Denial:

(1) You're trying to substitute a now-existing system (planetary orbits) for your actual previous request for the ORIGINS of a system ("show me how an aminosynthesis [or solar system] pathway evolved"). This is a "compositional fallacy." Or I could just call it a false analogy and leave it at that.
(2) With your example of planetary orbits, you're also using "begging the question" of such a system, because you're assuming facts not in evidence, like the ORIGINS of that system -- which is what you **REALLY** asked for about an evolutionary pathway. Try putting the EXACT same burdens of evidence on your own examples as you did on the examples of others, Denial. Don't try to substitute "existing " systems for "origins of" an existing system.

I could bother to point out how you're also employing a "cause and effect" fallacy, strawman,equivocation, etc.,  but I won't bother.

Now that you've dropped your other fake game of "final answers" in science, point to things in science that deal with what YOU actually asked for, Denial -- the ORIGINS of a system.

I want those examples to be as detailed as what your "definitional" criteria demands. Obviously you can find some that meet that level of " fine detail," testing, verification and agreed-upon acceptance. While you state just exactly, PRECISELY what criteria you use to determine EACH of those things.

See how easy it is to expose your con-game , Denial?


When you answer this to my satisfaction, I might respond to your request, Denial.

But my guess is that you simply lack the personal honor or ethics ("christian" or otherwise) to do so in any significant way.

My original argument states:                          
Quote
if a God of infinite intelligence created something, we will never be able to explain its origins by natural means.

This applies to the solar system as well.

Your admission that detailed origins for planetary orbits are unattainable enhances my argument.

1. I didn't say that sufficiently-detailed evidence regarding the origins of planetary orbits (to satisfy anyone but the most lunatic creationist like yourself) is "unattainable." We are continuing to gather this data today.

2. Me pointing out your fallacious substitution of "current" planets orbiting the sun vs. your actual demand to see origins of phenomenon...had absolutely no effect on you. Not even an apology for your blatant attempt at your usual low-level trickery. This isn't a good sign at all, Denial. Your personal expectations for your own ethics has sunk to new depths.

3. My point was quite clear, as were my repeated requests for specifics of how you evaluate evidence regarding " fine detail," testing, verification and agreed-upon acceptance. You didn't bother with that, either.

4.
(a) You asked for an aminosynthesis pathway, because you say evolution can't account for the origins of such a pathway.
(b) You were given that.
( c) You say it's not good enough for you (though you also say it's scientists who judge that) because it's not detailed enough as a "final answer."
(d) I point out that science doesn't deal with final answers, but for fun, I ask you to point to one.
(e) You concede that science doesn't deal in immutable "final answers" but you point to planetary orbits as example of something "settled" ; agreed-on in all details, etc. by the scientific community.
(f) I point out (among other things) that your attempt to use the example of planetary orbits around the sun isn't the same as  asking for the origins of such a system. Also, I could have mentioned that this "settled" knowledge could change tomorrow -- therefore it's not immutably settled. That's the way science is, due to the limits of induction --
(g) You seize on this and cry, "See?!?!111one! You can't know the origins of things in detail that satisfies my criteria, even if I say it's scientists who are to judge the validity of scientific claims, and no, I won't specify what criteria I use!!Bwahaha!! Therefore God exists!! "

Want me to list the fallacies you're employing now, Denial? The list is large.

Luckily, most of this can all be boiled down to the same infinite regress that I and others pointed out many times before -- All you have "discovered" is that Denial can reduce any phenomenon down to component parts and theoretically continue to ask indefinitely  "but where did that come from?" -- and declare "victory" when an honest respondent eventually has to answer "well, we can't say at this time."

Hell, I could use your "method" to "prove" elves, too, if the "proof" is only contingent on someone saying "well, we don't know where the north pole 'comes from' "

For you that means "God." but for others -- more honest folks -- that simply means "God of the Gaps".

By the way, I have to marvel at the sheer dishonest duplicity of offering up planetary orbits as an example of  "settled" science....and then your willingness to say "but I win if it's NOT "settled" science , even if **I** use it for an example of settled science, myself." Heads you win, tails everyone else loses? My. Even when YOU cite the example?

Does this sort of low-level fallacy-mongering work among your churchy brethren? One has to wonder why you keep trying it, even when you keep getting exposed  using it.

To summarize: You still haven't pointed to anything that is deemed "settled science" regarding origins, because that's where you find the gaps to stick your god in when He isn't in the mirror. Nor have you cast any light on the criteria by which you evaluate evidence. It's put up or shut up tiime, Denial.

Try being honest and saying "well, the truth is that my criteria are only based on finding a point at which scientists say 'we don't know' and then I swoop in and prop my God up there."

I made my own list (perhaps afterward we can compare notes)

(1) I asked for a detailed evolutionary pathway for aminosynthesis but no one was able to provide one.
(2) I then asked for an outline or an immediate precursor so that we could build from that.
(3) You replied with your sketchy outline.
(4) I point out that we need to now try to add detail to it.
(5) You blow up and accuse me of "moving the goalposts" and setting up an "infinite regression"
(6) You leave for awhile (presumably to cool off).
(7) When you come back, I point out that all I'm asking for is something that is settled science (I use the term "final answer" as well but later correct that).
(8) You ask for an example of settled science (no mention of it having to be about "origins").  
(9) I give several examples (including common descent) but you claim they are not detailed enough.  
(10) I then give the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun as an example of settled science.
(11) You respond by moving the goalposts and claiming that now the only settled science answer you'll accept must deal with origins.
(12) I respond that my position all along has been that origins will forever be impossible to explain by science (since it can only test for natural mechanisms and God didn't use nature to create itself).
(13) You say now that I didn't answer your question (although I did) and accuse me of a lot of things including championing a "God of the gaps".

(This is not a detailed account.  It is only a sketchy outline.  If you want detail, go back and reread our posts.)

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,06:06   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 01 2009,23:38)
Regarding openings in the scientific field, there's been a massive brains leakage to better horizons these past few years, due to drastic cuts in the science budget. There was a glimpse of sunshine during Claudie Haigneré's office as minister of Sciences, but it's all gone down the drain even since.

Shame, they had the one person who understood what was at stakes in science...

Anyway, avoid at all cost until further government changes.

This is generally what I'd heard from French colleagues. Oh well. There goes my dream of Parisian or Norman or perhaps even Basque (good rugby) living combined with a nice little career in science.

The grass is always greener* I guess...

Louis

*Especially in Amsterdam.

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,09:03   

With France as a welcome diversion on this thread, here’s what I have to offer:

I spent two months in Paris in 1957. Working for NCR, I was sent there to learn a new machine – a
veritable accounting machine. Basically a mechanical device, but upgraded with electronics to handle ledger cards with magnetic stripes to store account balance. Full of relays and switches.

I was young and quick to learn, I believe I knew almost every detail of the machine. Except I didn’t like it, the card handling gears had some ugly mechanisms, IMHO working near the limits of what could be of any long-term reliability. With repairs requiring a major disassembly.

Be that as it may – it was quite an experience, with the training school located right on the Champs Elysees, staying at a hotel on one of the side streets. The Parisian atmosphere still lingers in my mind.

The only thing I regret is, I wasn’t aware that my idol Sidney Bechet (whom the French, from what I have read, adored as God) was playing there at that time!

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,09:05   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 02 2009,01:38)
Regarding openings in the scientific field, there's been a massive brains leakage to better horizons these past few years, due to drastic cuts in the science budget. There was a glimpse of sunshine during Claudie Haigneré's office as minister of Sciences, but it's all gone down the drain even since.

Shame, they had the one person who understood what was at stakes in science...

Anyway, avoid at all cost until further government changes.

Look here is what you do, find a South Seas Island and blow it up with plutonium.
I hear New Zealand would like to do that to Pitcairn Island with all the recent goings on there.
That will create heaps of work for French scientists.
It would be a win win situation.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,09:35   

Quote
...Paris in 1957.


That trumps my Berlin in 1968!  :D

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,11:04   

Quote (Alan Fox @ April 30 2009,14:25)
 
Quote
...I wind my merry way...
That's wend, I think.</nitpick>

Hi Dan.

I'd ask what's the point, but...

What's the point?

Hi Alan.

The point is - Life requires God.

--------------
"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: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,11:15   

Quote
The point is - Life requires God.


Maybe, Dan, but it's an issue beyond the scope of science.

  
Alan Fox



Posts: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,11:32   

Do you look in at Uncommon descent? A commenter, Hazel posted this recently:

 
Quote
Theistic evolution posits that God is present in all events - not in an “interfering” way, but rather as an active participant. Christians don’t doubt that God is subtly guiding their lives towards the ends that God desires, so I don’t see why they would doubt that God could likewise guide evolution.


You might find find the discussions there a little more sympathetic. Link

You might also give  Allen MacNeill's website a look. He might have a little more patience with you.

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,11:35   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 02 2009,11:04)
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 30 2009,14:25)
   
Quote
...I wind my merry way...
That's wend, I think.</nitpick>

Hi Dan.

I'd ask what's the point, but...

What's the point?

Hi Alan.

The point is - Life requires God.

No, your wish is that life requires your particular idea of god.  Since all testable claims for gods have not panned out, the evidence leans on the side of "God requires Life (to imagine it)."

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,11:51   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 02 2009,12:04)
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 30 2009,14:25)
   
Quote
...I wind my merry way...
That's wend, I think.</nitpick>

Hi Dan.

I'd ask what's the point, but...

What's the point?

Hi Alan.

The point is - Life requires God.

By the same logic, it requires the tooth fairy.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,14:42   

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 02 2009,17:51)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 02 2009,12:04)
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 30 2009,14:25)
   
Quote
...I wind my merry way...
That's wend, I think.</nitpick>

Hi Dan.

I'd ask what's the point, but...

What's the point?

Hi Alan.

The point is - Life requires God.

By the same logic, it requires the tooth fairy.

HERETIC! Everyone knows life requires Bumface the Incredible and his trusty band of Nymphomaniac Geniuses.

SCHISM!!!! SCHISM!!!! SCHISM!!!! BURN THE UNBELIEVER!!!

Etc.

Louis

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

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,18:42   

Quote (Lou FCD @ May 02 2009,09:51)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 02 2009,12:04)
   
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 30 2009,14:25)
       
Quote
...I wind my merry way...
That's wend, I think.</nitpick>

Hi Dan.

I'd ask what's the point, but...

What's the point?

Hi Alan.

The point is - Life requires God.

By the same logic, it requires the tooth fairy.

To my knowledge, the "tooth fairy" has never been defined as an omniscient being.

Since life requires that - by the same logic, the tooth fairy is ruled out.

--------------
"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: May 02 2009,18:44   

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 02 2009,09:15)
 
Quote
The point is - Life requires God.


Maybe, Dan, but it's an issue beyond the scope of science.

Which is kinda what I've been saying for awhile here Alan.

--------------
"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: May 02 2009,18:46   

Quote (Alan Fox @ May 02 2009,09:32)
Do you look in at Uncommon descent? A commenter, Hazel posted this recently:

   
Quote
Theistic evolution posits that God is present in all events - not in an “interfering” way, but rather as an active participant. Christians don’t doubt that God is subtly guiding their lives towards the ends that God desires, so I don’t see why they would doubt that God could likewise guide evolution.


You might find find the discussions there a little more sympathetic. Link

You might also give  Allen MacNeill's website a look. He might have a little more patience with you.

I've been thinking about taking my arguments elsewhere for some time now.

This place is starting to bore me.

We'll see.

--------------
"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: 1556
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,18:51   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 02 2009,13:44)
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 02 2009,09:15)
 
Quote
The point is - Life requires God.


Maybe, Dan, but it's an issue beyond the scope of science.

Which is kinda what I've been saying for awhile here Alan.

Well, I haven't been following your thread for some time.  You haven't had any disagreement with other posters on science, then?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,19:09   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 02 2009,18:46)


I've been thinking about taking my arguments elsewhere for some time now.

Er, what arguments?

Try making an argument. Simply stating your conclusion is not an argument!

In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion. A deductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises; an inductive argument asserts that the truth of the conclusion is supported by the premises. Deductive arguments are valid or invalid, and sound or not sound. An argument is valid if and only if the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises and (consequently) its corresponding conditional is a necessary truth. A sound argument is a valid argument with true premises.

Each premise and the conclusion are only either true or false, i.e. are truth bearers. The sentences composing an argument are referred to as being either true or false, not as being valid or invalid; deductive arguments are referred to as being valid or invalid, not as being true or false. Some authors refer to the premises and conclusion using the terms declarative sentence, statement, proposition, sentence, or even indicative utterance. The reason for the variety is concern about the ontological significance of the terms, proposition in particular. Whichever term is used, each premise and the conclusion must be capable of being true or false and nothing else: they are truthbearers.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_argument
     
Quote
This place is starting to bore me.

What, not converted as many people as you would have liked?
     
Quote
We'll see.

We will indeed see. And don't forget to change your name because as soon as I find out where this other place is you are going to take your "arguments" I'll be sure to bring along a few choice quotes from you. Let everybody know just who they are dealing with!

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,19:17   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 02 2009,18:42)
To my knowledge, the "tooth fairy" has never been defined as an omniscient being.

Since life requires that - by the same logic, the tooth fairy is ruled out.

I hereby define the "tooth fairy" as an omniscient omnipotent being who, while it can control all space-time, chooses to deal only with teeth and the origin of life.

Therefore life requires the "tooth fairy" and the "tooth fairy" explains the origin of life and is necessary for the origin of life. After all, without life there are no teeth!

Will that do? Or do you demand that I dress up in some odd clothes first like your priests do before my declarations are "true" and are accepted by you as the directly (honestly, I'm not pretending or deluded) communicated word of whatever magic man in the sky you believe in?



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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,19:31   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 22 2007,04:48)
I have not made my mind up in regard to the age of the earth/cosmos as I have not seen all the evidence and probably do not have the expertise to rightly interpret it.

My main problem is that I want to see unbiased and unadulterated evidence; not evidence that is made-to-fit the observers viewpoint.  I'm finding that hard to do - since both sides of this issue tend to color the evidence with their own interpretive brush.
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ Sep. 26 2007,06:01)
  I need to see the evidence for myself - I won't just take your word for it.  

And when I asked you

e) Did every human but 8 die in a global flood?

You said
       
Quote
I believe in the flood, but only because I haven't seen the evidence against it.  My main reason for believing it (other than the bible), is that the landscape looks like the aftermath of massive flood runoff when viewed from the air.  Not very scientific, I know but that's where I'm at.  (insert joke here)


Answer the question.

Was the world population of humans down to 8 people at one time or not? Forget about the flood, you obviously are too scared to talk about that. Just answer the question, yes or no.

Did all but 8 people die less then 10,000 years ago or not?

You believe it, therefore you must have evidence for it right? You say you won't believe things unless you see the evidence for yourself. Yet somehow you knew that life was designed before you even had a basic understanding of biology. How does that work out?

And if your "evidence" is the bible, then how does that fit with    
Quote
I want to see unbiased and unadulterated evidence; not evidence that is made-to-fit the observers viewpoint.


Do you need two toothbrushes for those two faces of yours?

As Daniel won't answer me, somebody else ask him about the 8 people issue! That's something where the evidence can be examined!

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,20:29   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 02 2009,18:46)
I've been thinking about taking my arguments elsewhere for some time now.

This place is starting to bore me.

The only boring part is your notion that you need a god to make your life tolerable.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 02 2009,20:35   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 02 2009,20:31)
Answer the question.

Was the world population of humans down to 8 people at one time or not? Forget about the flood, you obviously are too scared to talk about that. Just answer the question, yes or no.

Did all but 8 people die less then 10,000 years ago or not?

so i, too, ask:  Did all but 8 people die less then 10,000 years ago or not?

and, the bonus question: why is daniel so afraid of theoldman's questions?

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,04:02   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 03 2009,00:46)
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 02 2009,09:32)
Do you look in at Uncommon descent? A commenter, Hazel posted this recently:

     
Quote
Theistic evolution posits that God is present in all events - not in an “interfering” way, but rather as an active participant. Christians don’t doubt that God is subtly guiding their lives towards the ends that God desires, so I don’t see why they would doubt that God could likewise guide evolution.


You might find find the discussions there a little more sympathetic. Link

You might also give  Allen MacNeill's website a look. He might have a little more patience with you.

I've been thinking about taking my arguments elsewhere for some time now.

This place is starting to bore me.

We'll see.

You're getting bored? Well fuck me sideways with a bargepole!

Your arguments consist of little more than "Wahhh look at X it must be due to god it's too complex" and "Waahhhh you'll never have an answer sufficiently detailed for me" and you think this place is boring?

Do get over yourself, sweetheart!

You've been boring the tits off people here for about 30 of the 34 pages of this thread, the thread before that and umpteen incursions onto the Wall. Your piss ignorant arrogance has prevented you from learning anything, let alone looking anything up beyond a Google, and your incessant recycling of the same, well refuted, nonsensical, illogical bullshit borders of the pathological.

The Dunning-Kruger effect might as well have been described based on you alone, not only are you clueless but you are too clueless to know it. Even shock tactics fail to penetrate that sphere of stupid that you call a cranium. Go somewhere else? Please do! Send someone interesting back instead.

Or of course you *could* start to learn some basic philosophy, pick up a book or two, you know actually do the work. But we all know you're both incapable and unwilling, no matter how politely, or how rudely, you are dealt with.

Louis

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,04:05   

Quote
I've been thinking about taking my arguments elsewhere for some time now.

This place is starting to bore me.


Homesick for the Bathroom Wall?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,04:07   

Quote (rhmc @ May 03 2009,02:35)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 02 2009,20:31)
Answer the question.

Was the world population of humans down to 8 people at one time or not? Forget about the flood, you obviously are too scared to talk about that. Just answer the question, yes or no.

Did all but 8 people die less then 10,000 years ago or not?

so i, too, ask:  Did all but 8 people die less then 10,000 years ago or not?

and, the bonus question: why is daniel so afraid of theoldman's questions?

I'll field those questions on Denial's behalf:

1) No. (There was a bottleneck, but from what we can tell it was a bottleneck much less narrow than 8 people)

2) He's as transparent as a sheet of magic super glass that is transparent to all frequencies of radiation and matter. He is afraid of anyone who sees through him. Oldman had his number, as did basically everyone, a long time ago. Some people were nicer about it, some people weren't.

Period.

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,04:20   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 03 2009,00:44)
Quote (Alan Fox @ May 02 2009,09:15)
 
Quote
The point is - Life requires God.


Maybe, Dan, but it's an issue beyond the scope of science.

Which is kinda what I've been saying for awhile here Alan.

What's that quote in your sign for then?

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,04:21   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 03 2009,00:42)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 02 2009,09:51)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 02 2009,12:04)
   
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 30 2009,14:25)
       
Quote
...I wind my merry way...
That's wend, I think.</nitpick>

Hi Dan.

I'd ask what's the point, but...

What's the point?

Hi Alan.

The point is - Life requires God.

By the same logic, it requires the tooth fairy.

To my knowledge, the "tooth fairy" has never been defined as an omniscient being.

Since life requires that - by the same logic, the tooth fairy is ruled out.

We await your imminent conversion to sikhism with baited breath.

Louis

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

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,09:38   

Quote (Louis @ May 03 2009,05:07)
1) No. (There was a bottleneck, but from what we can tell it was a bottleneck much less narrow than 8 people)

any estimates available on how narrow a bottleneck that was?

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,09:51   

Quote (rhmc @ May 03 2009,17:38)
Quote (Louis @ May 03 2009,05:07)
1) No. (There was a bottleneck, but from what we can tell it was a bottleneck much less narrow than 8 people)

any estimates available on how narrow a bottleneck that was?

Right now Daniel is praying for god to come back so he can answer that question for him.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,10:32   

If there were only 8 people alive just 6000 years ago, as we can see such a bottleneck in Cheetahs then we should be able to see it in humans too, but even more then in Cheetahs. 8 people. 6000 years ago. How's your popluation growth maths Denial?

Daniel, read this
http://richarddawkins.net/forum....72603b2
And then come back and tell me if you still believe in a global flood...

Denial, if there were only 8 people alive 6000 years ago who built the pyramids?

In your CNC workshop, do you tell your workmates about your ideas? What do they say?

Edited for clarity, sorta.

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,10:43   

Quote (Louis @ May 03 2009,11:21)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 03 2009,00:42)
 
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 02 2009,09:51)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 02 2009,12:04)
     
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 30 2009,14:25)
         
Quote
...I wind my merry way...
That's wend, I think.</nitpick>

Hi Dan.

I'd ask what's the point, but...

What's the point?

Hi Alan.

The point is - Life requires God.

By the same logic, it requires the tooth fairy.

To my knowledge, the "tooth fairy" has never been defined as an omniscient being.

Since life requires that - by the same logic, the tooth fairy is ruled out.

Wow! I just ticked on that one.

How did you get to that conclusion, that "life requires an omniscient being"?

Got any interesting, peer reviewed paper on that point?

And to follow the trend: 8 people on a boat for 40 days? That's either very kinky or just plain bad luck for the goats...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,11:10   

IIRC, 40 days it took to flood the Earth, but many more days had to be spent sailing the waves.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,11:19   

Quote (Quack @ May 03 2009,18:10)
IIRC, 40 days it took to flood the Earth, but many more days had to be spent sailing the waves.

Poor, poor goats...

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,11:45   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 02 2009,19:17)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 02 2009,18:42)
To my knowledge, the "tooth fairy" has never been defined as an omniscient being.

Since life requires that - by the same logic, the tooth fairy is ruled out.

I hereby define the "tooth fairy" as an omniscient omnipotent being who, while it can control all space-time, chooses to deal only with teeth and the origin of life.

Therefore life requires the "tooth fairy" and the "tooth fairy" explains the origin of life and is necessary for the origin of life. After all, without life there are no teeth!

Will that do? Or do you demand that I dress up in some odd clothes first like your priests do before my declarations are "true" and are accepted by you as the directly (honestly, I'm not pretending or deluded) communicated word of whatever magic man in the sky you believe in?


odds are this poor sod will ignore this.  beautiful.

life requires god because he defined it that way.

I've been trying to get Denial to either man up and bring the tard or to fuck off, for about 20 pages.

Banal fuck off.  Or talk about the flud.  or quit bullshitting about science which you are ignorant of and  indifferent or apathetic about.  tell us about your last vacation but please not another word about your beliefs and how you wish they were true but not so much that you actually empirically evaluate said beliefs.

i predict fuckface will ignore this and start continue rambling incoherently about proof and detail and his definitions.

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

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,12:04   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 03 2009,18:45)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 02 2009,19:17)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 02 2009,18:42)
To my knowledge, the "tooth fairy" has never been defined as an omniscient being.

Since life requires that - by the same logic, the tooth fairy is ruled out.

I hereby define the "tooth fairy" as an omniscient omnipotent being who, while it can control all space-time, chooses to deal only with teeth and the origin of life.

Therefore life requires the "tooth fairy" and the "tooth fairy" explains the origin of life and is necessary for the origin of life. After all, without life there are no teeth!

Will that do? Or do you demand that I dress up in some odd clothes first like your priests do before my declarations are "true" and are accepted by you as the directly (honestly, I'm not pretending or deluded) communicated word of whatever magic man in the sky you believe in?


odds are this poor sod will ignore this.  beautiful.

life requires god because he defined it that way.

I've been trying to get Denial to either man up and bring the tard or to fuck off, for about 20 pages.

Banal fuck off.  Or talk about the flud.  or quit bullshitting about science which you are ignorant of and  indifferent or apathetic about.  tell us about your last vacation but please not another word about your beliefs and how you wish they were true but not so much that you actually empirically evaluate said beliefs.

i predict fuckface will ignore this and start continue rambling incoherently about proof and detail and his definitions.

Oh, sorry Ras, you covered that already. I was just so attracted to the pic to read the content.

Ooooohhh! SHINY!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,14:29   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 03 2009,11:19)
 
Quote (Quack @ May 03 2009,18:10)
IIRC, 40 days it took to flood the Earth, but many more days had to be spent sailing the waves.

Poor, poor goats...

And the lamas, that figures...

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,16:37   

Quote (rhmc @ May 02 2009,18:35)
why is daniel so afraid of theoldman's questions?

I don't read oldman's posts.  I've explained my reasons for this several times.  He knows that but just keeps on posting anyway.  Same with Louis.

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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,16:57   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 03 2009,16:37)
I don't read oldman's posts.  I've explained my reasons for this several times.  He knows that but just keeps on posting anyway.  Same with Louis.

I thought you were going away.

Bye again.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,18:07   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 03 2009,16:37)
I don't read

I know. That's why I use so many pictures.

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

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,19:33   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 03 2009,17:37)
I don't read oldman's posts.  I've explained my reasons for this several times.  He knows that but just keeps on posting anyway.  Same with Louis.

both have posed valid questions.  

to be honest, it kinda looks like you can't answer them and that's why you claim you don't read their posts.

so, instead of reading their posts, here's two questions:

where is the evidence for the biblical flood?

where is the genetic evidence of a human population of only 8 people from which all of us descend?

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,22:30   

The Flood? Nah, that's water under the bridge. Or something.

Why would an exchange of comments about the Flood story be any more productive than the current theme?

Current theme: there are several observed patterns of evidence that are logically explained by evolution theory. But there are also lots of unanswered questions, as if that were somehow unexpected.

Flood: the patterns of evidence that would be expected from a singular event of that sort haven't been reported (i.e., no simultaneous worldwide discontinuities between the before and the after).

Henry

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,22:34   

rhmc

that's how it starts...

it knows that

it wants that

its here for just that

it ain't a real tard its an old troll tard
hard old troll tard
real troll old hard tard troll hard

tard tricks sticks in slick hard tard
troll sticks slick trick in old hard tard

and so on and so forth

Daniel how many puppets are you up to now buddy?  

this handle is a good one.  you claim to be a christian only to dismiss any further inquiries (we would actually like to know what has cause you to put such stubbornly positively ignorance so high on the scale of virtue) but you have nothing to say about jesus.  stand up for him son he stood up for you.  

i think you know fuckall about the bible either.  it's just part of your puppet garment aint it.  

you haven't offered a positive argument since you have been here just a bunch of wankery about how do you know something.  

i call paley on banal smith.  had me going for a while.  fish-hooked but it wasn't deep.

ETA  Henry if only.  Denial is not here to actually discuss things.  he is an old troll from way back

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,22:45   

Quote
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian




10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of yours.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from other life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a Triune God.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to Allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects - will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving."


3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to "prove" Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of God.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many atheists and agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history - but still call yourself a Christian.


--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,22:56   

yo k.e.. i am saying that probly ain't denial

most god botherers can't wait to start chirping in jesus' name.  ALL the ones that come to places like AtBC can't wait to bring that stuff.  yet banal won't even talk about the bible.

just his opinions about the epistemic content of scientific explanation at the last moment of Time.  as if anyone gave a flying fuck about him enough to convince him that payday is friday and shit runs downhill.  

my child is potty training.  it is a very similar behavior.  its not true fundieism it is interweb trollery from one of the old puppets we used to get that aren't around anymore.  and i welcome that.  but goddammit this one is mostly congenial, just vacuous.  he's not convinced he's right because he hasn't offered a single positive claim.  just a bunch of "you guys can't prove this to me" yeah well right ok

so many words to be not even wrong, well that is boring.  its a bit like skeptic used to be.  except skeptic even would know daniel is full of shit and just concern trolling for kicks

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

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

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

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

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,23:26   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 02 2009,19:42)
Quote (Lou FCD @ May 02 2009,09:51)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 02 2009,12:04)
     
Quote (Alan Fox @ April 30 2009,14:25)
         
Quote
...I wind my merry way...
That's wend, I think.</nitpick>

Hi Dan.

I'd ask what's the point, but...

What's the point?

Hi Alan.

The point is - Life requires God.

By the same logic, it requires the tooth fairy.

To my knowledge, the "tooth fairy" has never been defined as an omniscient being.

Since life requires that - by the same logic, the tooth fairy is ruled out.

No, you idiot. You assume life requires that. I contest that. Show your work.

And I contest your further assumption that the tooth fairy is not omniscient. How the hell do you suppose she knows who lost a tooth today? She is by definition omniscient.

And furthermore, she's way hotter in a short skirt than that dried up old prune you kneel before (doing god only knows what), and she's not a genocidal maniac.

Plus, there's actual evidence that she exists. Teeth go under pillows at night, money appears by the next morning. That right there is more evidence than there is for your psychotic, sociopathic blood god.

Edited by Lou FCD on May 04 2009,00:27

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 03 2009,23:34   

Quote
How the hell do you suppose she knows who lost a tooth today?


Transcen-dental meditation?

  
Rrr



Posts: 146
Joined: Nov. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,01:58   

Quote (Quack @ May 03 2009,11:10)
IIRC, 40 days it took to flood the Earth, but many more days had to be spent sailing the waves.

Impressive! Even more so than Paris, 1959. Provided, of course, that you do remember correctly...
:-)

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,02:36   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 03 2009,16:37)
 
Quote (rhmc @ May 02 2009,18:35)
why is daniel so afraid of theoldman's questions?

I don't read oldman's posts.  I've explained my reasons for this several times.  He knows that but just keeps on posting anyway.  Same with Louis.

What? Do you not don't read my posts?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,02:43   

Quote (Rrr @ May 04 2009,01:58)
 
Quote (Quack @ May 03 2009,11:10)
IIRC, 40 days it took to flood the Earth, but many more days had to be spent sailing the waves.

Impressive! Even more so than Paris, 1959. Provided, of course, that you do remember correctly...
:-)

Ahhh, nothing like a goat on the waves...

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,13:34   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 03 2009,22:37)
Quote (rhmc @ May 02 2009,18:35)
why is daniel so afraid of theoldman's questions?

I don't read oldman's posts.  I've explained my reasons for this several times.  He knows that but just keeps on posting anyway.  Same with Louis.

LOL

Yeah yeah, we all know. You can't answer the questions we ask, don't like the fact that we (and many others) see straight through you, don't like the fact that we refuse to sit quietly and nod at your dishonesty...

Oh wait, you mean those aren't the reasons? You seem to be differing with reality....again. Big shocker.

Louis

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,14:11   

Quote
LOL

Yeah yeah, we all know. You can't answer the questions we ask, don't like the fact that we (and many others) see straight through you, don't like the fact that we refuse to sit quietly and nod at your dishonesty...

Oh wait, you mean those aren't the reasons? You seem to be differing with reality....again. Big shocker.



One word: Psychosis.

Dan suffers from it....there's probably a brain chemistry explanation.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,16:25   

The extensive research that Richard Feynman did on ants showed how they created paths that got improved by continued use.

We find similar processes in the brain too, with the paths forming closed loops. Just replace the sugar with religion, creationism or whatever aberration you prefer.

By prolonged use the paths/loops become hardened, requiring more energy than available to break.

I believe we have empirical support for that theory.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,16:25   

Quote (k.e.. @ May 04 2009,21:11)
Quote
LOL

Yeah yeah, we all know. You can't answer the questions we ask, don't like the fact that we (and many others) see straight through you, don't like the fact that we refuse to sit quietly and nod at your dishonesty...

Oh wait, you mean those aren't the reasons? You seem to be differing with reality....again. Big shocker.



One word: Psychosis.

Dan suffers from it....there's probably a brain chemistry explanation.

My brain and I have great chemistry!

We go places together

And yet sometimes I let it wander

Now to be fair on the Denial matter

It's quite obvious that he's a wanker...


There, a little poem for ya!  :)

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,21:30   

Quote (k.e.. @ May 03 2009,22:45)
Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

<snip>

God/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women, children, and trees!

<snip>

In fairness, the trees were engaged in some totally gay pollination.  And the babies were going to grow up to be Hitler. Yes, all of them.

Back on topic... If Daniel won't talk about Ye Olde Flood, maybe he'll enlighten us about witches.  That would be entertaining.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 04 2009,21:47   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 01 2009,19:13)
(1) I asked for a detailed evolutionary pathway for aminosynthesis but no one was able to provide one.
(2) I then asked for an outline or an immediate precursor so that we could build from that.
(3) You replied with your sketchy outline.
A "sketchy outline? " The precise duplication pathway and supporting evidence. You then ignored that and  proceeded to work on your god of the gaps ploy: "where did that come from, Daddy?"

(4) I point out that we need to now try to add detail to it.
(5) You blow up and accuse me of "moving the goalposts" and setting up an "infinite regression"
Which is exactly what you are doing
(6) You leave for awhile (presumably to cool off).
False, but you never let facts bother you

(7) When you come back, I point out that all I'm asking for is something that is settled science (I use the term "final answer" as well but later correct that).
(8) You ask for an example of settled science (no mention of it having to be about "origins").  Yet that is precisely what your claim is about...and how it is that you keep using a god of the gaps fallacy
(9) I give several examples (including common descent) but you claim they are not detailed enough.  
(10) I then give the fact that the Earth orbits the Sun as an example of settled science.
(11) You respond by moving the goalposts and claiming that now the only settled science answer you'll accept must deal with origins.
(12) I respond that my position all along has been that origins will forever be impossible to explain by science (since it can only test for natural mechanisms and God didn't use nature to create itself).
(13) You say now that I didn't answer your question (although I did) and accuse me of a lot of things including championing a "God of the gaps".And this is exactly the point regarding your use of God of the Gaps methods...you simply keep asking "where did that come from?" and then  when someone says "we don't know" ...why, that's where Denial inserts his God.

(This is not a detailed account.  It is only a sketchy outline.  If you want detail, go back and reread our posts.)

 
Quote
The God of the Gaps argument tries to relegate God to the leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge increases, the dominion of God decreases. Judeo-Christian theology disagrees: God is above nature and science. Dietrich Bonhoeffer said: "...how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.[2]

Francis Collins, noted geneticist of Christian faith and head of the Human Genome Project, expounded on this in his book, "The Language of God" where he argues that using the God-of-the-gaps theory is scientifically irresponsible for Christians and may even be considered to take away from beautiful complexity of God's creation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps


--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,03:43   

Quote (k.e.. @ May 04 2009,20:11)
Quote
LOL

Yeah yeah, we all know. You can't answer the questions we ask, don't like the fact that we (and many others) see straight through you, don't like the fact that we refuse to sit quietly and nod at your dishonesty...

Oh wait, you mean those aren't the reasons? You seem to be differing with reality....again. Big shocker.



One word: Psychosis.

Dan suffers from it....there's probably a brain chemistry explanation.

Indubitably, my good sir.

It'll be one of them there complex feedback type thingies. Brain chemistry influences brain state, brain state influences psychology, psychology influences ideology, ideology influences psychology, psychology influences brain state, brain state influences brain chemistry. Or something not entirely unlike that.

{ahem}

This is the theory, the theory that is mine, it is my theory, no other person's theory is this, my theory is as follows, what is coming up is my theory...

{ahem}

Stuff affects other stuff.

Thank you.

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,03:51   

Quote (Quack @ May 04 2009,22:25)
The extensive research that Richard Feynman did on ants showed how they created paths that got improved by continued use.

We find similar processes in the brain too, with the paths forming closed loops. Just replace the sugar with religion, creationism or whatever aberration you prefer.

By prolonged use the paths/loops become hardened, requiring more energy than available to break.

I believe we have empirical support for that theory.

I'm not sure I'd classify either religion or creationism as aberrations. They seem to be successful mental strategies within certain given social contexts. For example has Duane Gish really suffered from his creationism? I understand he is mildly wealthy/healthy/fecund/socially acceptable.

Speaking purely from an adaptationist stance, the broader class of "limited reality denying world views" (because no world view denies reality utterly) doesn't appear to be enormously maladaptive given the social nature of our species. Speaking from a more pluralist stance, there seems to be no reason that "limited reality denying world views" could not be off shoots of other (perhaps more selected/selectable) mental processes. In fact there's a growing body of evidence that out pattern forming "machinery" is behind such things, IIRC (IANANeuroscientist).

But yes, the loops/paths thing is IIRC uncontroversial. Dammit, you've made me want to go and read ANOTHER book now! ;-)

Louis

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,05:02   

Quote
Dammit, you've made me want to go and read ANOTHER book now! ;-)


You’re welcome;-)

The problem nowadays is finding books one [I]want to  - and enjoy[/I ] reading, after Ian Fleming, Tom Clancy (ugh), - and SF, whodunits, suspense, in fact most fiction has lost its attraction.

One alternative is reading the same good books again, and again, but it is not possible to keep that going forever.

BTW, I said ‘aberration’ just to be controversial…


Edit: snipped irrelevant comment

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,06:51   

Quote (Quack @ May 05 2009,12:02)
One alternative is reading the same good books again, and again, but it is not possible to keep that going forever.

It is, actually. I've been hooked to Terry Pratchett for 10 years, and that's the only thing I'm reading now (in the novels category, of course, I'm not THAT closed).

I think the one I've read most is Jingo (about 12 times). I have almost the full discworld series (lacking only 4 books that I will order soon), and it's entertained me for 10 years now. I can feel another decade will pass by, and I still won't be bored with Pratchett's genius!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,09:05   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 05 2009,06:51)
 
Quote (Quack @ May 05 2009,12:02)
One alternative is reading the same good books again, and again, but it is not possible to keep that going forever.

It is, actually. I've been hooked to Terry Pratchett for 10 years, and that's the only thing I'm reading now (in the novels category, of course, I'm not THAT closed).

I think the one I've read most is Jingo (about 12 times). I have almost the full discworld series (lacking only 4 books that I will order soon), and it's entertained me for 10 years now. I can feel another decade will pass by, and I still won't be bored with Pratchett's genius!

Thanks for the tip. I didn't even know he existed, but I have the bad habit of looking for American authors only, imagine that!

I made a quick Google and believe there may be something there, will give him a fair chance!

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,10:38   

Quote (Louis @ May 05 2009,01:43)
It'll be one of them there complex feedback type thingies. Brain chemistry influences brain state, brain state influences psychology, psychology influences ideology, ideology influences psychology, psychology influences brain state, brain state influences brain chemistry. Or something not entirely unlike that.

You haven't provided sufficient detail.  Therefore, by the Law of Personal Incredulity, God did it.

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

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,11:54   

Quote (Quack @ May 05 2009,15:05)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ May 05 2009,06:51)
 
Quote (Quack @ May 05 2009,12:02)
One alternative is reading the same good books again, and again, but it is not possible to keep that going forever.

It is, actually. I've been hooked to Terry Pratchett for 10 years, and that's the only thing I'm reading now (in the novels category, of course, I'm not THAT closed).

I think the one I've read most is Jingo (about 12 times). I have almost the full discworld series (lacking only 4 books that I will order soon), and it's entertained me for 10 years now. I can feel another decade will pass by, and I still won't be bored with Pratchett's genius!

Thanks for the tip. I didn't even know he existed, but I have the bad habit of looking for American authors only, imagine that!

I made a quick Google and believe there may be something there, will give him a fair chance!

I heartily second Terry Pratchett, if only for the amazing puns.

(Come for the puns, stay for the biting satire and parody)

Louis

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,11:59   

Quote (JohnW @ May 05 2009,16:38)
Quote (Louis @ May 05 2009,01:43)
It'll be one of them there complex feedback type thingies. Brain chemistry influences brain state, brain state influences psychology, psychology influences ideology, ideology influences psychology, psychology influences brain state, brain state influences brain chemistry. Or something not entirely unlike that.

You haven't provided sufficient detail.  Therefore, by the Law of Personal Incredulity, God did it.

Ah yes of course. I shall amend my comment accordingly:

It'll be one of them there complex feedback type thingies. God made brain chemistry, god then makes it influence* brain state, god made brain state, god then makes it influence** psychology, god made psychology, god then makes it influence*** ideology, god made ideology, god then makes it influence**** psychology, then god makes psychology influence***** brain state, then god makes brain state influence****** brain chemistry. Or something not entirely unlike that.

Better?

Louis

* Don't ask how, we don't have to match your pathetic level of detail.
** Don't ask how, we don't have to match your pathetic level of detail.
*** Don't ask how, we don't have to match your pathetic level of detail.
**** Don't ask how, we don't have to match your pathetic level of detail.
***** Don't ask how, we don't have to match your pathetic level of detail.
****** Don't ask how, we don't have to match your pathetic level of detail.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 05 2009,12:05   

ALL SCIENCE SO FAR

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

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2009,20:37   

so no flood data and no bottleneck data.

sigh.

ya'll done broke another one.

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 08 2009,22:42   

Quote (rhmc @ May 08 2009,20:37)
so no flood data and no bottleneck data.

sigh.

ya'll done broke another one.

I'm sure he's posting somewhere else describing his huge victory to the gullible masses.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Daniel Smith



Posts: 970
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2009,12:10   

Quote (rhmc @ May 03 2009,17:33)
                                   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 03 2009,17:37)
I don't read oldman's posts.  I've explained my reasons for this several times.  He knows that but just keeps on posting anyway.  Same with Louis.

both have posed valid questions.  

to be honest, it kinda looks like you can't answer them and that's why you claim you don't read their posts.

so, instead of reading their posts, here's two questions:

where is the evidence for the biblical flood?

where is the genetic evidence of a human population of only 8 people from which all of us descend?

I've covered this several times.

I did not come here to debate the flood.  

I came here to point out the fact that the atheists here do not know how life came to be, do not know how life evolved, and ignore its obvious design.

I asked for an explanation as to how a specific amino acid biosynthetic pathway evolved and received no concrete answers.  Appeals were made to one unverified hypothetical pathway, but when pressed, the admission was made that it was no where near settled science.  I must point out here that I could have asked for an explanation for a whole host of other, much more complex living systems, but I purposely limited my question to an "easy one".  

I've shown that the reason these atheists don't accept the design in life has nothing whatsoever to do with science.  It is based solely on bias - an unwillingness to consider God as an option.

I conducted a thought experiment whereby the atheists here were asked to explain the origins of a detailed face on Mars (were there to be one).  Without hesitation, with no appeals to science, and with no "design filter" applied, they all agreed that such a thing "must be" designed.  The reason?  They could accept the possibility of a designer on Mars "like us".  Design then, when a designer was deemed "possible", was intuitively obvious, in spite of the fact that there are natural mechanisms that could conceivably build such a thing.

When pressed to apply this principle to life on Earth, the admission was made that, although they could conceive of a designer for life, THEY CHOSE NOT TO!

I've come to the conclusion that you atheists hide behind science because you know that it cannot test for God.  You pour over the books to reinforce your belief that life is just a cosmic coincidence.  You think that science has eliminated the need for God, yet science has explained exactly nothing regarding the origins of life.

The design of life is intuitively obvious to the vast majority of the world's population.  Perhaps if you pull your nose out of your books long enough to look around and consider the absolute majesty of it all, maybe, just maybe, you'll see what the rest of us see.  

I will continue to learn, read and study about life because the scientific literature poses no challenge to my belief in God.  Everything I've read to this point: all of the papers, all of the books, all of your posts, have only reinforced my faith.  There are no coincidences that could build the things I've seen.  Life is more than science.  Man is more than molecules.  There is a spiritual universe of which all here express complete ignorance.  

You all will continue to ignore such things as you have ignored even the scientific literature that is not of the mainstream mindset.  

In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism and you'll accurately describe the average atheist posting here.

Goodbye.

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2009,12:31   

Onlookers Please Note

<snicker>

So much nutty goodness & projection.

It's all about Daniel boo hoo hoo

Quote
I've come to the conclusion that you atheists hide behind science because you know that it cannot test for God.


And you hide behind the god of the Fundy Literal Bible because you know nothing else supports it's existance.

Quote

You pour over the books to reinforce your belief that life is just a cosmic coincidence.


Unlike Daniel who was a wanted child...maybe.


Quote

 You think that science has eliminated the need for God......


Need?......do tell Daniel ......a little lonely perhaps?

Quote

....yet science has explained exactly nothing regarding the origins of life


Yet.....watch this space.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2009,12:56   

Just yesterday I was in our attendance office when a student walked out of one of our assistant principals' offices, yelling about how he was leaving, and he didn't care about going to alternative, and all that.  We see the same with Daniel, who, after losing everything, still proclaims that he has won, that he has stumped everyone with his brilliance.

I do notice his claims about the face on Mars, and how we all assumed a designer like us, when that is false (I started before that) and misleading (most others accepted the idea that the face was not natural and a designer was needed, looking at how we could tell that), but why should Daniel stop lying now.  Or maybe he's just so far gone that he actually can't tell.  Not sure which is sadder.

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Richard Simons



Posts: 425
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2009,14:22   

Quote
It is based solely on bias - an unwillingness to consider God as an option.

No. It is based on the inability of people who believe in a god to produce a single experiment or other test in which the presence or absence of a god would make the slightest difference.
Quote
The design of life is intuitively obvious to the vast majority of the world's population.

yet it seems that, the more a person knows about biology, the less obvious the design becomes.
Quote
In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.

For weeks, people have been asking you for your explanations, but all you have ever said (when you did not evade the issue) boils down to 'God did it. I don't know how' with a whispered 'but it was not through evolution.'

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

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2009,14:32   

Denial, Denial, Denial. Tsk.

You arrived here as a true believer in the God given to you by your culture, along with cartoonlike caricatures of what you believe science, logic and rational discussion to be.

Want evidence of that? Look at your last post. In at least three places, you yap mindlessly about how you came here to expose the atheists and their godless science. You continue to hold to this despite many people telling you, many times, that not everyone here -- even the people you were talking to across this sea of electrons -- were atheists at all.

But you still choose to caricature people here as  your "atheist foes," with their "atheist ideas." Even when they say they're not.

You stick to this caricature much as you choose to continue to adhere to your simplistically naive view of logic, reason and science. That's fine. Maybe you've learned some things, maybe not. That's fine, too. What counts (for me, at least) is that perhaps one good thing can be gathered  from this painfully over-extended little encounter ; as Feynman once said (and which Louis memorializes in his "signature" ), science is a way of trying very hard NOT to fool one's self, while realizing that that same "self" is the easiest person to fool. Science is hard. Science isn't the same as faith.

Faith is easy -- little kids can be taught to believe very easily in the God of their culture (just as you argued not for Brahma, but only for Yahweh). Science is hard. It's a way of not fooling yourself about the universe around you while still recognizing the limitations of human investigation.

But you, why you discovered a little trick around that. A mental device, a demonstrable set of fallacies that used the God your culture gave you to "see" the world around you in a particular way. A view that you find enchanting and others find...well, laughable.

Your entire "challenge" was based on this trick (more properly, set of devices). All that you "discovered," as was pointed out to you many times as well, is that it is possible to

(1) Take the God of your choice and
(2) Ascribe the origins of all things to it.
(3) Challenge presumed "unbelievers" to a duel concerning "the origins of things"
(4) Take any "atheist" response and then push it backwards until you found a place for your God to nestle in, safe in that gap your naive reductionism and ignorance created and maintained.

If you find that to be comforting, great! Bon chance, and don't let the door hit you in the ass.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2009,15:34   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,10:10)
I did not come here to debate the flood.  

Yes, but your comments on the flood directly reflect your ability to evaluate evidence. The fact that you appear to believe that a global flood is both plausible and perhaps supported by the evidence strongly suggests that you aren't equipped to take on high school level geometry, never mind nitty gritty the details of molecular biology.
Quote

I came here to point out the fact that the atheists here do not know how life came to be, do not know how life evolved, and ignore its obvious design.

Note the dishonest implication that it's only atheists who accept the current scientific consensus. I suppose the millions of Christians who spent their academic lives in evolutionary biology weren't True Christians.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 09 2009,16:22   

Quote
I came here to point out the fact that the atheists here do not know how life came to be, do not know how life evolved, and ignore its obvious design.


OK, you knew it, you told us. But why all the questions? And what about your accusation which seems very similar to Ray Martinez's thesis: Anyone who accept evolution is by deafult an atheist?

Now that you've done the Lord's work you may wash your hands and enjoy your well earned peace of mind. No more doubts, pure joy of ultimate certainty.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,00:57   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,12:10)
Quote (rhmc @ May 03 2009,17:33)
                                     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 03 2009,17:37)
I don't read oldman's posts.  I've explained my reasons for this several times.  He knows that but just keeps on posting anyway.  Same with Louis.

both have posed valid questions.  

to be honest, it kinda looks like you can't answer them and that's why you claim you don't read their posts.

so, instead of reading their posts, here's two questions:

where is the evidence for the biblical flood?

where is the genetic evidence of a human population of only 8 people from which all of us descend?

I've covered this several times.

I did not come here to debate the flood.  

I came here to point out the fact that the atheists here do not know how life came to be, do not know how life evolved, and ignore its obvious design.

I asked for an explanation as to how a specific amino acid biosynthetic pathway evolved and received no concrete answers.  Appeals were made to one unverified hypothetical pathway, but when pressed, the admission was made that it was no where near settled science.  I must point out here that I could have asked for an explanation for a whole host of other, much more complex living systems, but I purposely limited my question to an "easy one".  

I've shown that the reason these atheists don't accept the design in life has nothing whatsoever to do with science.  It is based solely on bias - an unwillingness to consider God as an option.

I conducted a thought experiment whereby the atheists here were asked to explain the origins of a detailed face on Mars (were there to be one).  Without hesitation, with no appeals to science, and with no "design filter" applied, they all agreed that such a thing "must be" designed.  The reason?  They could accept the possibility of a designer on Mars "like us".  Design then, when a designer was deemed "possible", was intuitively obvious, in spite of the fact that there are natural mechanisms that could conceivably build such a thing.

When pressed to apply this principle to life on Earth, the admission was made that, although they could conceive of a designer for life, THEY CHOSE NOT TO!

I've come to the conclusion that you atheists hide behind science because you know that it cannot test for God.  You pour over the books to reinforce your belief that life is just a cosmic coincidence.  You think that science has eliminated the need for God, yet science has explained exactly nothing regarding the origins of life.

The design of life is intuitively obvious to the vast majority of the world's population.  Perhaps if you pull your nose out of your books long enough to look around and consider the absolute majesty of it all, maybe, just maybe, you'll see what the rest of us see.  

I will continue to learn, read and study about life because the scientific literature poses no challenge to my belief in God.  Everything I've read to this point: all of the papers, all of the books, all of your posts, have only reinforced my faith.  There are no coincidences that could build the things I've seen.  Life is more than science.  Man is more than molecules.  There is a spiritual universe of which all here express complete ignorance.  

You all will continue to ignore such things as you have ignored even the scientific literature that is not of the mainstream mindset.  

In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism and you'll accurately describe the average atheist posting here.

Goodbye.

10/10

excellent trollery.

i look forward to seeing you reinvent yourself again, legion

this was a nice character.  next time try for a portugese lesbian catholic mathematician excommunique who remains faithful to god despite her theology separating her from The Church.  or something

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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,02:33   

An Activista!!!!

Bring back the inquisition.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,03:31   

Well, at least this whole topic can be treasured as one of those so (un)rare occasions in which a (alleged) creotard makes a fool of himself.

Any slightly inquisitive mind would be thankful to all those who have contributed and tried to explain in a clear way, yet Denial flounces out with a cry of "ATHEISTS!"

The loss is on him really. Such a shame...



ps: how strong can his faith be that he is so scared of opening his eyes? Pretty weak, I gather.

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,04:42   

The Denial's goodbye post is a poignant document of intellectual bankruptcy.

It reminds me of an image that has stuck in my mind since 1949: it may be enjoyed between 1:20 to 2:20 here

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,06:36   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,12:10)
I did not come here to debate the flood.  



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

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,06:58   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,12:10)
I came here to point out the fact that the atheists here do not know how life came to be, do not know how life evolved, and ignore its obvious design.

And the implications, of course, are that you DO know those answers (even though you've never told us any of that), and that it is a bad thing to sometimes say "I don't know".

Strawmen to that end.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,07:27   

Quote
In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism...

Unintended irony is always the best.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,09:06   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ May 10 2009,14:36)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,12:10)
I did not come here to debate the flood.  


Thanks HOMO! :(

I blurted coffee all over my keyboard

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,09:52   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,18:10)
[SNIP WHINE]

In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism and you'll accurately describe the average atheist posting here.

Goodbye.

Translation:

Throwing tantrums and stamping my foot didn't make you believe in my Mythical Pixie of choice, hence it's all your fault and you are meanies.



Louis

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

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,10:26   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,12:10)
In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism and you'll accurately describe the average atheist posting here.



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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,12:47   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 10 2009,16:26)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,12:10)
In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism and you'll accurately describe the average atheist posting here.


You win the internets!

Louis

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,14:25   

Quote
Characteristic of the philosophy of symbolic forms is a concern for the more “primitive” forms of world-presentation underlying the “higher” and more sophisticated cultural forms — a concern for the ordinary perceptual awareness of the world expressed primarily in natural language, and, above all, for the mythical view of the world lying at the most primitive level of all. For Cassirer, these more primitive manifestations of “symbolic meaning” now have an independent status and foundational role that is quite incompatible with both Marburg neo-Kantianism and Kant's original philosophical conception. In particular, they lie at a deeper, autonomous level of spiritual life which then gives rise to the more sophisticated forms by a dialectical developmental process. From mythical thought, religion and art develop; from natural language, theoretical science develops. It is precisely here that Cassirer appeals to “romantic” philosophical tendencies lying outside the Kantian and neo-Kantian tradition, deploys an historical dialectic self-consciously derived from Hegel, and comes to terms with the contemporary Lebensphilosophie of Wilhelm Dilthey, Henri Bergson, Max Scheler, and Georg Simmel — as well as with the closely related philosophy of Martin Heidegger.
from here with my bolding.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,19:19   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 10 2009,10:26)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,12:10)
In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism and you'll accurately describe the average atheist posting here.


i can haz explanation?

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

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,19:28   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ May 10 2009,19:19)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 10 2009,10:26)
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,12:10)
In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism and you'll accurately describe the average atheist posting here.


i can haz explanation?

Projection.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,20:01   

Oh, that projector was to indicate projection? I figured it had something to do with knowing or not knowing what is reel.

Henry

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,20:03   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 10 2009,19:28)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 10 2009,19:19)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 10 2009,10:26)
 
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,12:10)
In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism and you'll accurately describe the average atheist posting here.


i can haz explanation?

Projection.

wow

thanks

anyone needs me i'll be at the bar.  trying to forget this entire thread ever happened.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2009,20:09   

Quote
anyone needs me i'll be at the bar.  trying to forget this entire thread ever happened.


Tabula Rasa... Tabula Rasa... Tabula Rasa...

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2009,04:06   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 10 2009,20:03)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 10 2009,19:28)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 10 2009,19:19)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 10 2009,10:26)
   
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,12:10)
In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism and you'll accurately describe the average atheist posting here.


i can haz explanation?

Projection.

wow

thanks

anyone needs me i'll be at the bar.  trying to forget this entire thread ever happened.


Skål, slainte, or whatever.

I was looking for a way of saying it in a roundabout manner, therefore my reference to Cassirer:

 
Quote
Characteristic of the philosophy of symbolic forms is a concern for the more “primitive” forms of world-presentation underlying the “higher” and more sophisticated cultural forms


--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2009,10:24   

Quote (Quack @ May 11 2009,12:06)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 10 2009,20:03)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 10 2009,19:28)
   
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,May 10 2009,19:19)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 10 2009,10:26)
     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,12:10)
In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism and you'll accurately describe the average atheist posting here.


i can haz explanation?

Projection.

wow

thanks

anyone needs me i'll be at the bar.  trying to forget this entire thread ever happened.


Skål, slainte, or whatever.

I was looking for a way of saying it in a roundabout manner, therefore my reference to Cassirer:

 
Quote
Characteristic of the philosophy of symbolic forms is a concern for the more “primitive” forms of world-presentation underlying the “higher” and more sophisticated cultural forms

Yer well you wood woodn you :)

Keep it simple the chilren r reedn

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2009,11:16   

Quote
Yer well you wood woodn you :)

Keep it simple the chilren r reedn

My fault, the connection was not easy to see, this one might have been better.

I just wanted to make it cryptic to tease you know who.

There I go again...

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2009,19:04   

Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 09 2009,13:10)
Quote (rhmc @ May 03 2009,17:33)
                                     
Quote (Daniel Smith @ May 03 2009,17:37)
I don't read oldman's posts.  I've explained my reasons for this several times.  He knows that but just keeps on posting anyway.  Same with Louis.

both have posed valid questions.  

to be honest, it kinda looks like you can't answer them and that's why you claim you don't read their posts.

so, instead of reading their posts, here's two questions:

where is the evidence for the biblical flood?

where is the genetic evidence of a human population of only 8 people from which all of us descend?

I've covered this several times.

I did not come here to debate the flood.... 

...I came here to point out the fact that the atheists here do not know how life came to be, do not know how life evolved, and ignore its obvious design.In conclusion, the atheistic position, as it has been expressed here, is one characterized by narrow mindedness, cowardice, a lack of knowledge, willful ignorance and extreme bias.  Add to that a healthy dose of judgmental egotism and you'll accurately describe the average atheist posting here.

Goodbye.

perhaps, but the one thing those "atheists" have presented is something called evidence.

evolution occurs and can be shown to occur.

please show us your evidence.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2009,20:11   

Quote
please show us your evidence.


dear gods no
at least not as banal

next face, please!

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

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

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

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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2009,20:31   

Question for the group:

Does Daniel's departure count as a flounce out?

a) yes

b)  
Quote
I did not come here to debate the flood.  

I came here to point out the fact that the atheists here do not know how life came to be, do not know how life evolved, and ignore its obvious design.


c)  
Quote
I've come to the conclusion that you atheists hide behind science because you know that it cannot test for God.  You pour over the books to reinforce your belief that life is just a cosmic coincidence.  You think that science has eliminated the need for God, yet science has explained exactly nothing regarding the origins of life.


d) all of the above

Please show your work...

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Badger3k



Posts: 861
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2009,01:11   

Quote (Texas Teach @ May 11 2009,20:31)
Question for the group:

Does Daniel's departure count as a flounce out?

a) yes

b)  
Quote
I did not come here to debate the flood.  

I came here to point out the fact that the atheists here do not know how life came to be, do not know how life evolved, and ignore its obvious design.


c)  
Quote
I've come to the conclusion that you atheists hide behind science because you know that it cannot test for God.  You pour over the books to reinforce your belief that life is just a cosmic coincidence.  You think that science has eliminated the need for God, yet science has explained exactly nothing regarding the origins of life.


d) all of the above

Please show your work...

I don't have to show my work - you have to disprove all of my work, which is immune to examination, and anyway, it changes depending on my arguments.  So there.

With a bad knee, I can't flounce, but I'll give it a try if I have to.  :)

--------------
"Just think if every species had a different genetic code We would have to eat other humans to survive.." : Joe G

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2009,03:15   

Quote (Texas Teach @ May 11 2009,20:31)
Question for the group:

Does Daniel's departure count as a flounce out?

a) yes

b)            
Quote
I did not come here to debate the flood.  

I came here to point out the fact that the atheists here do not know how life came to be, do not know how life evolved, and ignore its obvious design.


c)            
Quote
I've come to the conclusion that you atheists hide behind science because you know that it cannot test for God.  You pour over the books to reinforce your belief that life is just a cosmic coincidence.  You think that science has eliminated the need for God, yet science has explained exactly nothing regarding the origins of life.


d) all of the above

Please show your work...

d)
I had to Google:

Flounce: To move with exaggerated or affected motions: flounced petulantly out of the house.
Petulantly:
1. Unreasonably irritable or ill-tempered; peevish.
2. Contemptuous in speech or behaviour.

Spike Jones was "King of Corn." Maybe Daniel's masterpiece has earned him a proper title too?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2009,09:06   

http://www.sciencenews.org/view....started

 
Quote
Scientists may have figured out the chemistry that sparked the beginning of life on Earth.

The new findings map out a series of simple, efficient chemical reactions that could have formed molecules of RNA, a close cousin of DNA, from the basic materials available more than 3.85 billion years ago, researchers report online May 13 in Nature.

“This is a very impressive piece of work — a really excellent analysis,” comments chemist James Ferris of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y.

The new research lends support to the idea that RNA-based life-forms were the first step toward the evolution of modern life. Called the RNA world hypothesis, the idea was first proposed some 40 years ago. But until now, scientists couldn’t figure out the chemical reactions that created the earliest RNA molecules.

 
Quote
The team took a different approach, starting with a common precursor molecule that had a bit of the sugar and the base. “Basically, we took half a base, added that to half a sugar, added the other piece of base, and so on,” Sutherland says. “The key turned out to be the order that the ingredients are added and the way you put them together — like making a soufflé.”

Another difference is that Sutherland and his team added the phosphate to the mix earlier than in past experiments. Having the phosphate around so early helped the later stages of the reaction happen more quickly and efficiently, the scientists say.

The starting materials and the conditions of the reaction are consistent with models of the geochemistry of an early Earth, the team says.

“But while this is a step forward, it’s not the whole picture,” Ferris points out. “It’s not as simple as putting compounds in a beaker and mixing it up. It’s a series of steps. You still have to stop and purify and then do the next step, and that probably didn’t happen in the ancient world.”


Better move that gap back a bit Denial.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2009,12:57   

Quote
Quote
like making a soufflé


Then the egg came before the chicken!

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2009,17:35   

Quote
like making a soufflé

Didn't someone work out the CSI for that?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2009,22:26   

Which one, Miami, or New York?

Henry

  
EyeNoU



Posts: 115
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2009,01:15   

Quote (Henry J @ May 14 2009,22:26)
Which one, Miami, or New York?

Henry

Las Vegas.

  
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2009,04:10   

Quote (EyeNoU @ May 15 2009,08:15)
Quote (Henry J @ May 14 2009,22:26)
Which one, Miami, or New York?

Henry

Las Vegas.

Agreed, that's the only true CSI. The other ones are crap coated crap with crap topping and a side order of crap.

Grissom FTW!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2009,06:58   

Bycicle repair man sighted!
Link  
Quote

Daniel Smith Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Your arguments are interesting, but neither side's position has anything to do with science. Your positions are based on belief - period.

It's all about our ability to supply a believable (to us) causal mechanism for the things we see. Each person mentally constructs a causal history that fits with his or her already established worldview.

For someone who already believes in God, the design of life is readily apparent. They have no trouble imagining a causal scenario in which God designs life.

For someone who does not believe in God, the possibility of producing life via natural causes is also readily apparent. They too have no trouble imagining a causal scenario in which life builds itself.

Science has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! Science is only used to bolster your claims.

Thus you will continue to argue in circles.


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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2009,08:27   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 15 2009,12:58)
Bycicle repair man sighted!
Link    
Quote

Daniel Smith Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Your arguments are interesting, but neither side's position has anything to do with science. Your positions are based on belief - period.

It's all about our ability to supply a believable (to us) causal mechanism for the things we see. Each person mentally constructs a causal history that fits with his or her already established worldview.

For someone who already believes in God, the design of life is readily apparent. They have no trouble imagining a causal scenario in which God designs life.

For someone who does not believe in God, the possibility of producing life via natural causes is also readily apparent. They too have no trouble imagining a causal scenario in which life builds itself.

Science has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! Science is only used to bolster your claims.

Thus you will continue to argue in circles.

[Lion King]

It's the cirrrrrrrrrrrcle of liiiiiiiiiiiiiiife!

[/Lion King]

{Sniff, sniff}

Ain't it beautiful?

Louis

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

  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 15 2009,23:07   

Quote (Louis @ June 15 2009,08:27)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 15 2009,12:58)
Bycicle repair man sighted!
Link    
Quote

Daniel Smith Says:
June 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Your arguments are interesting, but neither side's position has anything to do with science. Your positions are based on belief - period.

It's all about our ability to supply a believable (to us) causal mechanism for the things we see. Each person mentally constructs a causal history that fits with his or her already established worldview.

For someone who already believes in God, the design of life is readily apparent. They have no trouble imagining a causal scenario in which God designs life.

For someone who does not believe in God, the possibility of producing life via natural causes is also readily apparent. They too have no trouble imagining a causal scenario in which life builds itself.

Science has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT! Science is only used to bolster your claims.

Thus you will continue to argue in circles.

[Lion King]

It's the cirrrrrrrrrrrcle of liiiiiiiiiiiiiiife!

[/Lion King]

{Sniff, sniff}

Ain't it beautiful?

Louis

That would be "The circle jerk of life"

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: June 23 2009,07:49   

don provan spanks Denial at TT.
 
Quote
   Every book, every paper, written by an ID scientists is a treatise stating basically "Look, here's some evidence that God (oops! I mean "an unnamed designer") may have done this."

   They're stuck at the starting gate.


Of course they're stuck. Their ideas and claims are just exactly as vacuous as we critics keep telling you they are. You are rationalizing why they aren't making progress even though you think they should be, but the truth is that they aren't making progress because they're blowing smoke.

Link

So Daniel, how's that working out for you? Not so good it appears.....

More slaps.

--------------
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: June 23 2009,08:26   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ June 23 2009,08:49)
don provan spanks Denial at TT.
 
Quote
   Every book, every paper, written by an ID scientists is a treatise stating basically "Look, here's some evidence that God (oops! I mean "an unnamed designer") may have done this."

   They're stuck at the starting gate.


Of course they're stuck. Their ideas and claims are just exactly as vacuous as we critics keep telling you they are. You are rationalizing why they aren't making progress even though you think they should be, but the truth is that they aren't making progress because they're blowing smoke.

Link

So Daniel, how's that working out for you? Not so good it appears.....

More slaps.

don provan does that articulately, politely and with good faith.  very nice.

CLEARLY he has not read the Denial thread.  Don, are you here?

--------------
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: June 24 2009,04:26   

The other shoe finally drops for Denial
 
Quote
Well, the only way to find out for sure is for the ID crowd to drop the debate about origins and attempt to do some real science from their God-centered assumptions. Until that happens, were just guessing.


Let us know. And good to know you admit that you were "just guessing" all along and your statements of "fact" here were simply lies.

Duh

Funny thing is Denial, people could have been doing "real science from their God-centered assumptions" all along, nobody's been stopping them. And they did anyway, the first geologists were working to confirm the biblical account of the global flood. And look what happneed to their assumptions!

Fool.

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2009,08:25   

The boy be trippin
Quote
Those of us who regularly traffic in the spiritual realm know that there are spiritual realities of which most of humanity are blissfully unaware. There is good and there is evil. There is a God and there is a devil. That devil opposes God at every turn. This is what he does, and this is what those over whom he holds sway do as well. His influence is obvious (and predictable). They say the devil's greatest feat was convincing the world that he does not exist, but the actions of atheists–and their often baffling alignments with other anti-Christian forces–are a testament to the fact that he does.

http://telicthoughts.com/what-is-science/#comment-239259

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2009,08:42   

I don't think you are following the overwhelming logic here:

The failure of educated people to believe in myths is proof that they are factual.

If the invisible gnomes weren't clouding your brain, you would be able to see them.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2009,09:18   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ July 21 2009,09:25)
The boy be trippin
 
Quote
Those of us who regularly traffic in the spiritual realm know that there are spiritual realities of which most of humanity are blissfully unaware. There is good and there is evil. There is a God and there is a devil. That devil opposes God at every turn. This is what he does, and this is what those over whom he holds sway do as well. His influence is obvious (and predictable). They say the devil's greatest feat was convincing the world that he does not exist, but the actions of atheists–and their often baffling alignments with other anti-Christian forces–are a testament to the fact that he does.

http://telicthoughts.com/what-is-science/#comment-239259

Daniel as much as fun as it was to point out the errors in your arguments it sounds as if you might have slipped a couple of gears.  Please get checked out ASAP so that we have more tard to go around some day, it would be a shame for all that crazy to go to waste in a round room somewhere down at Bedlam

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

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

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

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

  
Louis



Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 21 2009,18:13   



All I know about life I learned from LOLCats.*

Louis

*This may or may not be true.

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

  
dogdidit



Posts: 315
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2009,08:25   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,July 21 2009,09:18)
Daniel as much as fun as it was to point out the errors in your arguments it sounds as if you might have slipped a couple of gears.  Please get checked out ASAP so that we have more tard to go around some day, it would be a shame for all that crazy to go to waste in a round room somewhere down at Bedlam

Raevmo agrees:
Quote
But seriously, and no offense intended, you need some professional help, dude.

Heh heh.

--------------
"Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

  
Reed



Posts: 274
Joined: Feb. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 22 2009,21:33   

Quote (dogdidit @ July 22 2009,06:25)
                     
Quote
But seriously, and no offense intended, you need some professional help, dude.

Heh heh.

It is not my habit to venture into the tard mines. Being cowardly and fearing for my sanity, I am content to feed on those morsels brought to the surface here. However, upon seeing the above, I inferred that a particularly choice nugget must be lurking nearby. Against my better judgment, I was drawn to seek it out. Holding my breath against the foul vapors therein, I descended into those loathsome pits, and lo, what did I behold ? A diabolical gem of tard:
                   
Quote (denial @ tard,pit)
The forces are already beginning the strategic alignments of disparate God-hating groups. One key element will be conservative Muslims aligned with extreme left-wing radicals and atheists. Such alignments make no sense in the physical world, but they make perfect sense in the spiritual world.

That's right, God-hating groups like conservative Muslims. Makes sense in the spiritual world Daniels psychotic delusion. Seriously dude, get help.

  
dogdidit



Posts: 315
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 23 2009,09:24   

Quote (Reed @ July 22 2009,21:33)
 
Quote (dogdidit @ July 22 2009,06:25)
 
Quote
But seriously, and no offense intended, you need some professional help, dude.

Heh heh.

It is not my habit to venture into the tard mines. Being cowardly and fearing for my sanity, I am content to feed on those morsels brought to the surface here. However, upon seeing the above, I inferred that a particularly choice nugget must be lurking nearby. Against my better judgment, I was drawn to seek it out. Holding my breath against the foul vapors therein, I descended into those loathsome pits, ...

You walked right into my trap BWAH HAH HAH HAH
 
Quote
...and lo, what did I behold ? A diabolical gem of tard:  
Quote (denial @ tard,pit)
The forces are already beginning the strategic alignments of disparate God-hating groups. One key element will be conservative Muslims aligned with extreme left-wing radicals and atheists. Such alignments make no sense in the physical world, but they make perfect sense in the spiritual world.

That's right, God-hating groups like conservative Muslims. Makes sense in the spiritual world Daniels psychotic delusion. Seriously dude, get help.

Daniel's current get-thee-behind-me-Satan histrionics over on TT shows that he is struggling mightily with his faith. Daniel, just let it go -- if it doesn't come back to you, it never was truly yours.

Daniel is a True Believer.

--------------
"Humans carry plants and animals all over the globe, thus introducing them to places they could never have reached on their own. That certainly increases biodiversity." - D'OL

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2009,08:26   

Quote (Reed @ July 22 2009,21:33)
Quote (dogdidit @ July 22 2009,06:25)
                       
Quote
But seriously, and no offense intended, you need some professional help, dude.

Heh heh.

It is not my habit to venture into the tard mines. Being cowardly and fearing for my sanity, I am content to feed on those morsels brought to the surface here. However, upon seeing the above, I inferred that a particularly choice nugget must be lurking nearby. Against my better judgment, I was drawn to seek it out. Holding my breath against the foul vapors therein, I descended into those loathsome pits, and lo, what did I behold ? A diabolical gem of tard:
                     
Quote (denial @ tard,pit)
The forces are already beginning the strategic alignments of disparate God-hating groups. One key element will be conservative Muslims aligned with extreme left-wing radicals and atheists. Such alignments make no sense in the physical world, but they make perfect sense in the spiritual world.

That's right, God-hating groups like conservative Muslims. Makes sense in the spiritual world Daniels psychotic delusion. Seriously dude, get help.

Wow, leave young Daniel to his own devices and all teh crazy comes rushing out like a sewer rupturing.

Atheists will be aligned with "God-hating Mooslim Conservatives." Wow. There's an oxymoron for ya.

Cats will lie with dogs! It'll be bizarro world, up will be down, good will be bad, Big Brother will be Little Sister.

It's the END TIMES, DANIEL, SAVE ME.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 24 2009,09:55   

Quote
All it takes to get started on the proper footing is the superior philosophical position that "all apparently designed things should be considered actually designed until demonstrated otherwise." Or to generalize further, "all apparent things should be consider to be actual, until demonstrated otherwise." This is what humans do by default, and it is superior to the alternative.
:p

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2009,15:24   

Daniel Smith:    
Quote
I'm a simple layman, but I've said in another thread that the designer must have had a way to manipulate molecular structures and I've hypothesized that perhaps it is possible to do this with focused light energy or sound waves.

Or maybe "the designer" had hands?
Or it might have been done with tools and equipment.
There ya go materialists! The designer manipulated molecular structures with light energy or sound waves using tools and equipment!
Quote
ID scientists should be coming up with similar hypotheses and testing them IMO, rather than arguing about origins.

And how would you go about testing that?

ROFL.

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

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2009,16:22   

Cant get much better than that! I just love it! One of my pet subjects! How, just how do he do it? That's the million dollar question. I've been thinking along the line that we have (according to my understanding - but I may, as always, be wrong) something like a law of action and reaction - you cannot manipulate anything without something hitting back at you. Like firing a gun.

It somehow strikes me as absurd that God would be manipulating matter and have his hands getting dirty, so to speak. But wouldn't that make God into something material? I have always thought God was spirit?

But being omnipotent, he might of course turn himself into a team of - scientists - and have a lot of fun and a couple of beers while designing dinosaurs and fruit flies.

I hope Daniel will continue developing his idea into a full-fledged theory.

And hope I don't make a complete fool of myself before he's finished.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2009,19:13   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 11 2009,16:24)
Or maybe "the designer" had hands?
Or it might have been done with tools and equipment.

This has all been worked out to a pathetic level of detail. And it's little hands AND little tweezers:

I. Biological causality reflects the operation of two basic, complimentary units: Thinks and Poofs. A Think is a mind-like, timeless-sizeless representation of a Thing. A Poof is a hand-like manipulation of matter-energy such that the appropriate Thing is physically instantiated. A Think without a Poof is incapable of interacting with matter/energy, is therefore undetectable, and hence remains a somewhat of a theoretical abstraction. Similarly, a Poof can arise IFF informed by at least one Think.

Given sufficient agentic and material resources, Thinks and Poofs give rise to Things. Balanced Think/Poof calculations give rise to testable empirical predictions arising from the combinatorial mathematics of Thing Theory.

II. Thinks and Poofs are initiated by units of pure intelligent agency known as Rodins*. At the current state of theoretical development the Rodin remains a placeholder concept that has yet to be given empirical grounding. It is unclear, for example, whether there is a single Rodin, two Rodins, or countless Rodins and, if there exist more than one Rodin, whether all Rodins give rise to equally efficacious Think/Poofs. It is also unclear whether multiple Rodins stand in cooperative, competitive, or other relationship to one another, whether Rodins borrow Thinks inferred from the Things originated by other Rodins, whether Rodins have degrees of omniscience, and so forth. However, we have every reason to believe that these questions can be given empirical formulation and resolved through an appropriate combination of laboratory and field investigation.

With the above limitations in mind, we may begin to sketch the moving parts of Intelligent Design, grounding it in a calculus of Rodins, Thinks, Poofs, and Things, and indeed begin to explore the operation of entities in any given instance of Intelligent Design.

IV. Intelligent Design may be said to have occurred when a Rodin gives rise to a Think or Thinks, which in turn invoke(s) a Poof or Poofs in order to originate a Thing.

Rodin-initiated Thinks are mind-like, agentic, timeless-sizeless representations. Poofs do the hand-like work of actually arranging matter/energy to conform to the specification of a given Think, giving rise to a Thing. A Rodin may "choose" to formulate a grand system of interlocking Thinks all apiece, yet implement such a Think-Structure imperceptibly over deep time by issuing Poofs only slowly and sequentially. Alternatively, a Think-Structure may give rise to thousands of simultaneous Poofs, yielding an (only apparently) saltational Thing Structure that instantaneously mirrors the underlying Think Structure. Biological Things that display Irreducible Complexity almost certainly issue from the latter sort of process: a single Rodin exerts its intrinsic intentionality to originate a complex biological Think Structure which is intern effected by means of multiple simultaneous, interlocking Poofs.

The reader may find it helpful to imagine countless little hands equipped with little minds - I call them "Behes" - issuing from a Rodin or Rodins, swarming over and grasping bits of matter-energy - say, base pairs in a DNA molecule - and manipulating them with special tweezers to form Irreducibly Complex Biological Things.

V. It should be clear from the above that a calculus of Rodins, Thinks, Poofs and a completed, empirical Thing Theory promises to dissolve some of the knottiest problems in biology today. For example, we may now confidently sketch the origins of life on earth: a Rodin or Rodins originated a complex Think-Structure that gave rise to both simultaneous and sequential Poofs that created the first biological Thing, detonating life on earth. All that remains is to supply the details.  

In the future we hope to infer the properties of agentic Rodin or Rodins themselves, by tracing Think-Poof-Thing pathways much as the electrodynamic properties of elementary particles may be inferred from the ephemeral trails left within a cloud chamber. We anticipate that the biology of the 22nd century will be characterized by Rodin simulations (e.g. of Rodin belief-desire), the computational modeling of Biological Think-Structures, the detection and deconstruction of Poof-efficacy at the Think-Thing interface, the simultaneous, coordinated operation of countless Behes, and eventually a completed Thing Theory. We may also confidently anticipate that a bankrupt Darwinism with truly be a "thing" of the past.

*Sculptor of The Thinker.



Edited by Lou FCD on Oct. 12 2009,22:01

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2009,21:39   

=========
 | Start |
 =========
    |
    |
====================
| Think up concept |
====================
    |
    |
======================
| Implement via Poof |
======================
    |
    |
 ========
 | Done |
 ========

---

As we say in the software industry, the rest is implementation detail.

Henry

  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,05:43   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 11 2009,19:13)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 11 2009,16:24)
Or maybe "the designer" had hands?
Or it might have been done with tools and equipment.

This has all been worked out to a pathetic level of detail. And it's little hands AND little tweezers:

I. Biological causality reflects the operation of two basic, complimentary units: Thinks and Poofs. A Think is a mind-like, timeless-sizeless representation of a Thing. A Poof is a hand-like manipulation of matter-energy such that the appropriate Thing is physically instantiated. A Think without a Poof is incapable of interacting with matter/energy, is therefore undetectable, and hence remains a somewhat of a theoretical abstraction. Similarly, a Poof can arise IFF informed by at least one Think.

Given sufficient agentic and material resources, Thinks and Poofs give rise to Things. Balanced Think/Poof calculations give rise to testable empirical predictions arising from the combinatorial mathematics of Thing Theory.

II. Thinks and Poofs are initiated by units of pure intelligent agency known as Rodins*. At the current state of theoretical development the Rodin remains a placeholder concept that has yet to be given empirical grounding. It is unclear, for example, whether there is a single Rodin, two Rodins, or countless Rodins and, if there exist more than one Rodin, whether all Rodins give rise to equally efficacious Think/Poofs. It is also unclear whether multiple Rodins stand in cooperative, competitive, or other relationship to one another, whether Rodins borrow Thinks inferred from the Things originated by other Rodins, whether Rodins have degrees of omniscience, and so forth. However, we have every reason to believe that these questions can be given empirical formulation and resolved through an appropriate combination of laboratory and field investigation.

With the above limitations in mind, we may begin to sketch the moving parts of Intelligent Design, grounding it in a calculus of Rodins, Thinks, Poofs, and Things, and indeed begin to explore the operation of entities in any given instance of Intelligent Design.

IV. Intelligent Design may be said to have occurred when a Rodin gives rise to a Think or Thinks, which in turn invoke(s) a Poof or Poofs in order to originate a Thing.

Rodin-initiated Thinks are mind-like, agentic, timeless-sizeless representations. Poofs do the hand-like work of actually arranging matter/energy to conform to the specification of a given Think, giving rise to a Thing. A Rodin may "choose" to formulate a grand system of interlocking Thinks all apiece, yet implement such a Think-Structure imperceptibly over deep time by issuing Poofs only slowly and sequentially. Alternatively, a Think-Structure may give rise to thousands of simultaneous Poofs, yielding an (only apparently) saltational Thing Structure that instantaneously mirrors the underlying Think Structure. Biological Things that display Irreducible Complexity almost certainly issue from the latter sort of process: a single Rodin exerts its intrinsic intentionality to originates a complex biological Think Structure which is intern effected by means of multiple simultaneous, interlocking Poofs.

The reader may find it helpful to imagine countless little hands equipped with little minds - I call them "Behes" - issuing from a Rodin or Rodins, swarming over and grasping bits of matter-energy - say, base pairs in a DNA molecule - and manipulating them with special tweezers to form Irreducibly Complex Biological Things.

V. It should be clear from the above that a calculus of Rodins, Thinks, Poofs and a completed, empirical Thing Theory promises to dissolve some of the knottiest problems in biology today. For example, we may now confidently sketch the origins of life on earth: a Rodin or Rodins originated a complex Think-Structure that gave rise to both simultaneous and sequential Poofs that created the first biological Thing, detonating life on earth. All that remains is to supply the details.  

In the future we hope to infer the properties of agentic Rodin or Rodins themselves, by tracing Think-Poof-Thing pathways much as the electrodynamic properties of elementary particles may be inferred from the ephemeral trails left within a cloud chamber. We anticipate that the biology of the 22nd century will be characterized by Rodin simulations (e.g. of Rodin belief-desire), the computational modeling of Biological Think-Structures, the detection and deconstruction of Poof-efficacy at the Think-Thing interface, the simultaneous, coordinated operation of countless Behes, and eventually a completed Thing Theory. We may also confidently anticipate that a bankrupt Darwinism with truly be a "thing" of the past.

*Sculptor of The Thinker.

POTÆ!


(Post of the æon)

Quote
All that remains is to supply the details.  


Why?

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
Schroedinger's Dog



Posts: 1692
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,05:47   

Quote
POTÆ!


(Post of the æon)


Seconded!

--------------
"Hail is made out of water? Are you really that stupid?" Joe G

"I have a better suggestion, Kris. How about a game of hide and go fuck yourself instead." Louis

"The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is that vampires are allergic to bullshit" Richard Pryor

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,10:18   

Quote
POTÆ!


(Post of the æon)

Modesty made me decide not to be the first...

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
deadman_932



Posts: 3094
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,10:25   

fourthded.

--------------
AtBC Award for Thoroughness in the Face of Creationism

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,11:42   

fifthed!

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,16:01   

sixthed!

Wait, I can't do that.

Truth be told, "post of the æon" is about right. I've been recycling that little thing here for a year or so now.

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

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2009,16:10   

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Oct. 12 2009,17:01)
sixthed!

Wait, I can't do that.

Truth be told, "post of the æon" is about right. I've been recycling that little thing here for a year or so now.

well since you said it I'll say I have always loved that stuff.  rodins and whatnot.  the original should be enshrined sommers

--------------
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: Jan. 20 2010,17:33   

Quote
Daniel Smith Says:
January 20th, 2010 at 6:35 pm
I think what we have here is just another version of "opposing world views". This time our world views are influencing which conclusion we think the evidence points to.

Wait…

Daniel, ever stop and wonder if your own "world view" influences the conclusions you come to? And have stuck with despite all available evidence? As per this thread?

Daniel, can you think of a way, perhaps a method, to try and guard against that sort of thing?

Think hard....

--------------
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: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 20 2010,18:37   

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Feb. 08 2009,02:02)
 
Quote (noncarborundum @ Feb. 07 2009,21:37)
 
Quote (hereoisreal @ Feb. 07 2009,21:05)
     
Quote (hereoisreal @ Jan. 26 2009,22:22)
Jam:
“The point I'm trying to make to everyone is that one can test predictions
of ID hypotheses after the onion of dishonesty is peeled back.”

Jam, what do you get when you cross an onion with a donkey?
Well, most of the time you get little onions, but once in a
while you get a piece of ass soo good, it brings tears to your eyes.

Zec 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout, O daughter of
Jerusalem: behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he [is] just, and having
salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

Zero

"thy King cometh" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the event happens.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you have saved your own ass.


Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Eze 3:19 Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.

"Cthulhu fhtagn" is a  prediction unsubstantiated or verified until the stars once again come into proper alignment.
Only then does the verse take on meaning and relevance because, for one, it proves you have spoken the truth, and two... you're in deep shit.

On the other hand, "Hastur, Hastur, Hastur" can possibly be considered a practical experiment, albeit one that ends up similarily to your second point...:)

Similarly,

"Mene, mene, tekel, upharsin"

was actually instructions for the palace builders:  

"Measure twice, cut once."

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
  1103 replies since Jan. 26 2009,15:45 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (37) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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