Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Daniel Smith's "Argument from Impossibility"

Pages: (37) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >

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

Pages: (37) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard