RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] >   
  Topic: IDC != AntiEvolution?, Discuss...< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Mr_Christopher



Posts: 1238
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,16:53   

Richard, add a few more like JoeG and I'll be here every day!

Nice to see you guys keeping the flames of tard burning!

--------------
Uncommon Descent is a moral cesspool, a festering intellectual ghetto that intoxicates and degrades its inhabitants - Stephen Matheson

  
bfish



Posts: 267
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,17:16   

Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)
I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I must dispute this claim.

A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.

Exaptation?

  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2333
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,17:58   

Quote (bfish @ Mar. 11 2010,15:16)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)
I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I must dispute this claim.

A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.

Exaptation?

I had a similar thought. Or better yet, I could give the chocolate tea pot to my wife, and she would finally forgive me that one time many years ago I forgot to giver her an anniversary card.

(ONE FRICKIN' TIME IN 20 YEARS)! (WE WENT OUT TO FREAKIN' DINNER. I WORE A FRICKIN' SHIRT- TUCKED IN, I MIGHT ADD)!

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

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 11 2010,22:51   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 11 2010,15:58)
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 11 2010,15:16)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)
I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I must dispute this claim.

A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.

Exaptation?

I had a similar thought. Or better yet, I could give the chocolate tea pot to my wife, and she would finally forgive me that one time many years ago I forgot to giver her an anniversary card.

(ONE FRICKIN' TIME IN 20 YEARS)! (WE WENT OUT TO FREAKIN' DINNER. I WORE A FRICKIN' SHIRT- TUCKED IN, I MIGHT ADD)!

With sleeves?

Anyway, pulling teeth on a horse would be easier than getting GI Joe to actually pony up any real answers to your questions. He's got nothin', he knows he's got nothin', so he just does the "I know you are but what am I" schtick ad infinitum.

--------------
"[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

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 13 2010,01:10   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:23)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 06 2010,13:00)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

How can we test the IDea that a designer did it?

It's called reducibility- that is finding out what it is reducible to- ie finding out what it takes to get the thing in question.

And right now it appears to take quite a bit of agency involvement just to get the building blocks living organisms require.

Which agency? What did it/they do? When was it done? What tools where used?

Or do you just want to claim "gee whizz, this is darn complicated, God did it! "? That argument has been used before, it once explained things such as weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, stellar movements etc. It did not advance our understanding then, why would it help now?

BTW, what was it you wanted to teach in a ID class? The stuff that would destroy current biology/evolutionary thought/opinion. Or is it a secret?

  
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,13:05   

Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 11 2010,17:58)
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 11 2010,15:16)
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)
I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I must dispute this claim.

A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.

Exaptation?

I had a similar thought. Or better yet, I could give the chocolate tea pot to my wife, and she would finally forgive me that one time many years ago I forgot to giver her an anniversary card.

(ONE FRICKIN' TIME IN 20 YEARS)! (WE WENT OUT TO FREAKIN' DINNER. I WORE A FRICKIN' SHIRT- TUCKED IN, I MIGHT ADD)!

Gary,

Seeing the EF is only as good as the person using it, in your hands it would be very useless...

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Occam's Toothbrush



Posts: 555
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,13:39   

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 11 2010,23:51)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 11 2010,15:58)
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 11 2010,15:16)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)
I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I must dispute this claim.

A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.

Exaptation?

I had a similar thought. Or better yet, I could give the chocolate tea pot to my wife, and she would finally forgive me that one time many years ago I forgot to giver her an anniversary card.

(ONE FRICKIN' TIME IN 20 YEARS)! (WE WENT OUT TO FREAKIN' DINNER. I WORE A FRICKIN' SHIRT- TUCKED IN, I MIGHT ADD)!

With sleeves?

Anyway, pulling teeth on a horse would be easier than getting GI Joe to actually pony up any real answers to your questions. He's got nothin', he knows he's got nothin', so he just does the "I know you are but what am I" schtick ad infinitum.

This is grossly unfair to Joe.  He also has the "I know you are but what am I, assface" schtick.

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

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 29 2010,16:40   

Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,13:05)
Gary,

Seeing the EF is only as good as the person using it, in your hands it would be very useless...

So basically, if the person using it wants to see design, the EF will 'detect' design regardless of the inputs.

Really useful scientific tool there. :p

--------------
"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.

  
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,08:06   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Mar. 29 2010,16:40)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 29 2010,13:05)
Gary,

Seeing the EF is only as good as the person using it, in your hands it would be very useless...

So basically, if the person using it wants to see design, the EF will 'detect' design regardless of the inputs.

Really useful scientific tool there. :p

Wrong again you ignorant fuck.

With science it has to be repeatable- that is someone else has to be able to verify that inference.

However you being an ignorant fuck wouldn't understand that.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,08:09   

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 11 2010,22:51)
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 11 2010,15:58)
Quote (bfish @ Mar. 11 2010,15:16)
 
Quote (Alan Fox @ Mar. 11 2010,08:15)
I think the EF is as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I must dispute this claim.

A chocolate teapot is WAY more useful than the Explanatory Filter. I can eat the chocolate teapot.

Exaptation?

I had a similar thought. Or better yet, I could give the chocolate tea pot to my wife, and she would finally forgive me that one time many years ago I forgot to giver her an anniversary card.

(ONE FRICKIN' TIME IN 20 YEARS)! (WE WENT OUT TO FREAKIN' DINNER. I WORE A FRICKIN' SHIRT- TUCKED IN, I MIGHT ADD)!

With sleeves?

Anyway, pulling teeth on a horse would be easier than getting GI Joe to actually pony up any real answers to your questions. He's got nothin', he knows he's got nothin', so he just does the "I know you are but what am I" schtick ad infinitum.

Asshole it is you and your ilk who have nuthin'.

If you had something you would just present it.

But you can't because you don't have anything.

You do realize that the only way ID will go away is if you fucknuts start substantiating the claims of your position.

The way to demonstrate living organisms are not designed is by demonstrating they can arise via blind, undirected (chemical) processes.

You can erect as many ID strawmen as you want but you still wouldn't have any positive evidence for your position.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,08:11   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 13 2010,01:10)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:23)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 06 2010,13:00)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

How can we test the IDea that a designer did it?

It's called reducibility- that is finding out what it is reducible to- ie finding out what it takes to get the thing in question.

And right now it appears to take quite a bit of agency involvement just to get the building blocks living organisms require.

Which agency? What did it/they do? When was it done? What tools where used?

Or do you just want to claim "gee whizz, this is darn complicated, God did it! "? That argument has been used before, it once explained things such as weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, stellar movements etc. It did not advance our understanding then, why would it help now?

BTW, what was it you wanted to teach in a ID class? The stuff that would destroy current biology/evolutionary thought/opinion. Or is it a secret?

What are you going to teach in evolutionary class?

Hell you can't even demonstrate the transformations required are even possible.

Can evolution be quantified?

IOW is there a way to measure it?

Can we measure how many mutations it takes to "evolve" a whale from a land animal?

No, then how can it be considered science?

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,08:54   

SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?

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

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,11:47   

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:11)

Quote
What are you going to teach in evolutionary class?


1) More organisms are born than can possibly survive in the environment.
2) Each organism is (sexual reproduction)/ may be (asexual reproduction) different from it's parent and siblings.
3) Any of the differences may confer an advantage to survival of the organism.
4) Organisms that survive tend to have more kids that look more like them than those that don't survive.

It's called evolution... learn what it is before trying to discredit it.

Quote
Hell you can't even demonstrate the transformations required are even possible.

whales, horses, humans

Quote
Can evolution be quantified?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
IOW is there a way to measure it?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
Can we measure how many mutations it takes to "evolve" a whale from a land animal?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
No, then how can it be considered science?


Because it is observable, repeatable and falsifiable... unlike whatever tripe you promote.

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

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

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,12:37   

I remembered there was a measurement unit called the "Darwin". So I did a quick Google Scholar search and found a recent paper titled Rates of Evolution
 
Quote
Haldane (1949) calculated rates of evolutionary change two ways, first in factors of e (base of the natural logarithms), and second in phenotypic SDs. He marked time in years and in generations. Haldane coined the rate unit darwin to represent increase or decrease of size by a factor of e per million years (Haldane 1949, p. 55). The rates of horse evolution that he calculated were on the order of 40 millidarwins (40 10?9; a darwin is a factor of e per million years,and 1/1000 of that is a factor of e per billion years). These were calculated on timescales of 5 16 million years.

Haldane wrote that the use of the standard deviation as a yardstick has a certain interest because, on any version of the Darwinian theory, the variation within a population at any time constitutes, so to say, the raw material available for evolution (p. 52). He calculated that horses changed by about one SD per 200,000 generations, or 5 10?6 SD per generation on a timescale of about 13 million generations.

I don't expect this will have any positive affect on Joe G (aka ID Guy). I will be surprised if he even bothers to read the paper.

The point isn't there isn't a known metaphysically correct way to measure evolution (we don't know the Truth) but there are scientific ways which are understandable even by those who disagree with their validity.

EDIT - fixed link, minor edit

  
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,14:28   

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,11:47)
[quote=Joe G,April 03 2010,08:11][/quote]
Quote
What are you going to teach in evolutionary class?


1) More organisms are born than can possibly survive in the environment.
2) Each organism is (sexual reproduction)/ may be (asexual reproduction) different from it's parent and siblings.
3) Any of the differences may confer an advantage to survival of the organism.
4) Organisms that survive tend to have more kids that look more like them than those that don't survive.

It's called evolution... learn what it is before trying to discredit it.

Quote
Hell you can't even demonstrate the transformations required are even possible.

whales, horses, humans

Quote
Can evolution be quantified?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
IOW is there a way to measure it?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
Can we measure how many mutations it takes to "evolve" a whale from a land animal?


You're the only one with this requirement.

Quote
No, then how can it be considered science?


Because it is observable, repeatable and falsifiable... unlike whatever tripe you promote.

Wow it looks like you are going to teach baraminology.

Or at least you shouldn't have any problem with it being presented.

And that whales, horses and humans exist does not mean they evolved from soemthing that wasn't a whale, horse or human.

There isn't any genetic evidence that the transformations requires are even possible.

It has never been observed.

It cannot be repeated.

And if it cannot be measured how can it be science?

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,14:30   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 03 2010,12:37)
I remembered their was a measurement unit called the "Darwin". So I did a quick Google Scholar search and found a recent paper titled Rates of Evolution
 
Quote
Haldane (1949) calculated rates of evolutionary change two ways, first in factors of e (base of the natural logarithms), and second in phenotypic SDs. He marked time in years and in generations. Haldane coined the rate unit darwin to represent increase or decrease of size by a factor of e per million years (Haldane 1949, p. 55). The rates of horse evolution that he calculated were on the order of 40 millidarwins (40 10?9; a darwin is a factor of e per million years,and 1/1000 of that is a factor of e per billion years). These were calculated on timescales of 5 16 million years.

Haldane wrote that the use of the standard deviation as a yardstick has a certain interest because, on any version of the Darwinian theory, the variation within a population at any time constitutes, so to say, the raw material available for evolution (p. 52). He calculated that horses changed by about one SD per 200,000 generations, or 5 10?6 SD per generation on a timescale of about 13 million generations.

I don't expect this will have any positive affect on Joe G (aka ID Guy). I will be surprised if he even bothers to read the paper.

The point isn't there isn't a known metaphysically correct way to measure evolution (we don't know the Truth) but there are scientific ways which are understandable even by those who disagree with their validity.

OK Dave,

Do some measurements using "darwins"-

How many darwins to get a whale from a land animal?

How can what Haldane said be verified?

Or is it only OK because it agrees with what you already believe?

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,14:32   

Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:54)
SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?

Don't worry about CSI-

Just start substantiating the claims of your position.

That is all you have to do.

Yet you don't- why is that?

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,14:44   

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:54)
SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?
Don't worry about CSI-

Just start substantiating the claims of your position.

That is all you have to do.

Yet you don't- why is that?

Joe,

As you are the one who says that EF and CSI are real tools, you are the one that has to show how they are used.

So, could you show us, we ignorant, atheistic, socialistic, Obama loving, unwashed heathens how one uses EF to determine design?

Thanks in advance

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,14:59   

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:54)
SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?

Don't worry about CSI-

Just start substantiating the claims of your position.

That is all you have to do.

Yet you don't- why is that?

It's your position.  If your position is supportable, then you can teach me how to use the tools.

Unless you're scared.
Unless you can't because you don't know how they work.
Unless you can't because they don't exist like I say they do.

Let me try this again Joe.  No one in science has to show shit to you.  You won't believe it regardless of what we show you.  

So, here's your chance to show us how your side works.  

Unless you're chicken.
Unless you can't.
Because you know that your side doesn't have dick.

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

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

   
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 03 2010,15:28   

Hi Joe G,
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:30)
OK Dave,

Do some measurements using "darwins"-

How many darwins to get a whale from a land animal?

How can what Haldane said be verified?

Or is it only OK because it agrees with what you already believe?


Did you bother to try to follow the link I provided?

(The link was broken but, somehow, I doubt you were being polite by not mentioning it.)

From...
Rates of Evolution

Quote
Modern mammals span something like 10^2 SD or 10^3 0.1 SD units (comparing the least shrew to the great blue whale), and these diverged from each other something like 10^7 generations ago (Gingerich 2001, p. 141). At H0 = 0.1, a rate found commonly in rate studies, a mammal could conceivably change from the size of a shrew to the size of a whale in 10^3 generation...


The paper is only 16 pages of explanations on the very subject you are asking about.

Remember that "level playing field" we were discussing long ago?

Would you now provide a number, any number, describing the Specied Information of a spherical rock with the same radius as a baseball laying on a couch beside a broken window?

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 04 2010,09:10   

Joe can't perform his measurements and he knows it.  All he has is bluster.  Chicken

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

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

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,13:05   

Quote (FrankH @ April 03 2010,14:44)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:32)
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:54)
SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?
Don't worry about CSI-

Just start substantiating the claims of your position.

That is all you have to do.

Yet you don't- why is that?

Joe,

As you are the one who says that EF and CSI are real tools, you are the one that has to show how they are used.

So, could you show us, we ignorant, atheistic, socialistic, Obama loving, unwashed heathens how one uses EF to determine design?

Thanks in advance

Frank,

You don't need to worry about ID.

All you need to do is start substantiating the claims of your position.

What part of that don't you understand?

Doesn't your position have any useful tools?

Does your position have any positive evidence?

If it does can you please present it.

As for the EF, well Frank no one infers design when chance and/ or necessity can account for it.

Do you understand that Frank?

IOW Frank the EF is the process YOU would use to try to refute the design inference.

And I would say it is the process used by all scientists and people trying to determine the cause of something.

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
Joe G



Posts: 12011
Joined: July 2007

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,13:07   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ April 03 2010,15:28)
Hi Joe G,
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:30)
OK Dave,

Do some measurements using "darwins"-

How many darwins to get a whale from a land animal?

How can what Haldane said be verified?

Or is it only OK because it agrees with what you already believe?


Did you bother to try to follow the link I provided?

(The link was broken but, somehow, I doubt you were being polite by not mentioning it.)

From...
Rates of Evolution

Quote
Modern mammals span something like 10^2 SD or 10^3 0.1 SD units (comparing the least shrew to the great blue whale), and these diverged from each other something like 10^7 generations ago (Gingerich 2001, p. 141). At H0 = 0.1, a rate found commonly in rate studies, a mammal could conceivably change from the size of a shrew to the size of a whale in 10^3 generation...


The paper is only 16 pages of explanations on the very subject you are asking about.

Remember that "level playing field" we were discussing long ago?

Would you now provide a number, any number, describing the Specied Information of a spherical rock with the same radius as a baseball laying on a couch beside a broken window?

TP,

The Darwin unit doesn't tell us if the transformations required are even possible.

It assumes they are.

What the theory needs is an objective measurement pertaining to genetics- as in how many mutations does it take to get X?

--------------
"Facts are Stupid"- Timothy Horton aka Occam's Afterbirth

"Genetic mutations aren't mistakes"-ID and Timothy Horton

Whales do not have tails. Water turns to ice via a molecular code-  Acartia bogart, TARD

YEC is more coherent than materialism and it's bastard child, evolutionism

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2010,13:19   

Quote
What the theory needs is an objective measurement pertaining to genetics- as in how many mutations does it take to get X?


Actually, that's the focus of a lot of research.

Since ID is premised on the notion that a designer can anticipate the effects of a change, it would be interesting to see a theory of how you could do that.

Not just the immediate biochemical effects, but the effects on reproductive success within an ecosystem. At a particular time in history.

Evilutionists just plod along assuming you try everything and let selection sort it out.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
FrankH



Posts: 525
Joined: Feb. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2010,09:41   

Quote (Joe G @ April 06 2010,13:05)
Quote (FrankH @ April 03 2010,14:44)
Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,14:32)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 03 2010,08:54)
SO, Joe, you gonna teach me how to measure CSI and calculate the values for some organisms?

Should we use the whole genome or will mitochondrial RNA work?
Don't worry about CSI-

Just start substantiating the claims of your position.

That is all you have to do.

Yet you don't- why is that?
Joe,

As you are the one who says that EF and CSI are real tools, you are the one that has to show how they are used.

So, could you show us, we ignorant, atheistic, socialistic, Obama loving, unwashed heathens how one uses EF to determine design?

Thanks in advance
Frank,

You don't need to worry about ID.

All you need to do is start substantiating the claims of your position.

What part of that don't you understand?

Doesn't your position have any useful tools?

Does your position have any positive evidence?

If it does can you please present it.

As for the EF, well Frank no one infers design when chance and/ or necessity can account for it.

Do you understand that Frank?

IOW Frank the EF is the process YOU would use to try to refute the design inference.

And I would say it is the process used by all scientists and people trying to determine the cause of something.

No Joe,

I won't use a "divining rod" to look for water as that is crap science.  I won't use EF or CSI either as that is crap science.

Again, let's say that evolution is wrong.  It does not stand that ID nor creationism are right.  You are going to have to show that your postulate (what verifiable predictions does ID make?  What have been tested?) has merit.

The ball is in your court to show EF and CSI have merit.  I don't have to disprove anything about EF and CSI is a proponent such as yourself is unable to make it work.

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

  
cogzoid



Posts: 234
Joined: Sep. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2010,10:41   

Quote (Joe G @ April 06 2010,13:05)
You don't need to worry about ID.

All you need to do is start substantiating the claims of your position.

What part of that don't you understand?

Doesn't your position have any useful tools?

Does your position have any positive evidence?

If it does can you please present it.

As for the EF, well Frank no one infers design when chance and/ or necessity can account for it.

Do you understand that Frank?

IOW Frank the EF is the process YOU would use to try to refute the design inference.

And I would say it is the process used by all scientists and people trying to determine the cause of something.

Who's worrying about ID? A handful of morons gather on the web and discuss how evolution is on its way down. They produce no output except barely read books. They can't even keep enough steam to publish in the many journals they start then soon abort. Evolutionary science meanwhile churns out massive amounts of new research every day around the globe. It's full of positive evidence. And if you had the ability to comprehend any of them you'd see this.

Ignorance is one thing. Your proud, stubborn ignorance is shameful.

When are you going to get elected to a school board? I'd love to see you introduce your pseudo-science into public schools again!

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2010,18:24   

Quote (Joe G @ April 03 2010,08:11)
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 13 2010,01:10)
 
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 11 2010,08:23)
 
Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Mar. 06 2010,13:00)
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 02 2010,07:57)
So just how can we test the premise that the bacterial flagellum- or any biological structure- "evolved" via an accumulation of genetic accidents?

Or are you clowns going to finally admit that your position is non-testable?

How can we test the IDea that a designer did it?

It's called reducibility- that is finding out what it is reducible to- ie finding out what it takes to get the thing in question.

And right now it appears to take quite a bit of agency involvement just to get the building blocks living organisms require.

Which agency? What did it/they do? When was it done? What tools where used?

Or do you just want to claim "gee whizz, this is darn complicated, God did it! "? That argument has been used before, it once explained things such as weather, volcanoes, earthquakes, stellar movements etc. It did not advance our understanding then, why would it help now?

BTW, what was it you wanted to teach in a ID class? The stuff that would destroy current biology/evolutionary thought/opinion. Or is it a secret?

What are you going to teach in evolutionary class?

Hell you can't even demonstrate the transformations required are even possible.

Can evolution be quantified?

IOW is there a way to measure it?

Can we measure how many mutations it takes to "evolve" a whale from a land animal?

No, then how can it be considered science?

I am starting to think that you are as thick as a whale sandwich. You made some claims, I asked you to expand upon them and you just retort with nonsense. But hey-ho, I will attempt to answer your questions; I doubt that you will reciprocate.

What would I teach in an evolutionary class? That lifeforms are related, that species group into nested hierarchies etc.

Can evolution be quantified? That would depend on the specific example, some things can, such as relational closeness of species, genome size or time lines etc.

Can we measure how many mutations it takes to evolve a whale from a land animal? I do not know, do you?

How can it be considered science? Assuming you still mean evolution. Because it is based upon evidence, it has been tested, it makes accurate predictions, it explains the diversity of life and makes a good argument about why animal testing of human medicine makes sense (amongst others).


I bet you do not return the courtesy I have shown you. Yet you made the original claim. Meanwhile you think that you inhabit the moral high-ground because you believe in something that you have no evidence for.







Well done!

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2010,22:46   

Quote
Can we measure how many mutations it takes to evolve a whale from a land animal? I do not know, do you?

We can do quite a bit better than guess. We can calculate upper and lower bounds.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
Ptaylor



Posts: 1180
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2010,02:46   

Quote (midwifetoad @ April 09 2010,17:46)
Quote
Can we measure how many mutations it takes to evolve a whale from a land animal? I do not know, do you?

We can do quite a bit better than guess. We can calculate upper and lower bounds.

I've tried to do some of these calculations. The calculations are certainly, certainly not hard, but they're interesting. I stopped at 50,000.</twiddles pen pompously>

--------------
We no longer say: “Another day; another bad day for Darwinism.” We now say: “Another day since the time Darwinism was disproved.”
-PaV, Uncommon Descent, 19 June 2016

  
  178 replies since Feb. 24 2010,09:34 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (6) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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